Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy (Evolution)

by David Turell , Tuesday, June 20, 2023, 16:37 (312 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Again a magnification of bad events. Molecules fold freely, so mistakes can happen. We need gut bacteria, but they make an awful mess if they escape. Cancer cells seem very intelligent as they use DNA in distorted ways. Free will allows humans to be very evil, if they wish.

dhw: Bad events = evil. Back to your bolded statement above: Do you believe some bacteria and some viruses were programmed to kill us, or did your God give them the freedom to do so?

Definitely no. Those bugs were fine as long as they were living in their own safe place. The bacteria in the colon are just very helpful, unless they leak outside the colon. Viruses must invade your body to cause trouble.

DAVID: What you want is a Garden of Eden now. You can't have it. You must live with tradeoffs that necessarily exist. I lead a happy life. I guess you don't.

dhw: I’m afraid the fact that you lead a happy life (and so do I) does not explain why an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God would create evil. Stop dodging.

God did not directly create evil. Free-will humans do that; all so-called bad bugs become that only if they get in the wrong places. Being aware of His creation's potential, He provided safeguard mechanisms documented here.

dhw: Not being all-knowing is not the same as “unknowing”....A God who invents “free-wheeling” life which initially is “good” should not be blamed for consequences he did not foresee. It is precisely your insistence on his all-knowingness that makes him “guilty”: your all-knowing, all-powerful God would only create what he wanted to create, and therefore he wanted to create evil.

DAVID: So a lack of knowledge exonerates your God from all the evils He creates? Preposterous.

dhw: I’m always amazed at your eagerness to blame your God – once called “perfect” by you – for creating all evil. Fine. Your solution to the problem of theodicy is now clear: God created evil because he wanted to create evil. But on the other hand, apparently evil is so rare that we should ignore it, because...what? God is all-good?

You did not answer for your God's ignorance, stated above, did you?

dhw: But maybe you're right. Maybe he did want to create evil. After all, one can argue that good can only be appreciated if we have bad as well, and death is essential if there is to be room enough for new life, and why should God care about the suffering involved? That would certainly explain non-intervention. Then you can have your all-powerful God who deliberately creates evil. He may or may not know all the future details (human free will could suggest he doesn't), but not caring is not consistent with our concept of “all-good”. So this will strengthen the view of a deistic watcher (if he’s there) who enjoys creating and who watches with interest – callously at best, sadistically at worst.

DAVID: Interesting summary sort of from the bright side. Your God and my God produced the same system of evolution.

dhw: I would not regard a God who deliberately created evil, and was indifferent to the sufferings he caused, as being “from the bright side”. In none of my theories do my versions of God produce the same system as yours: you have him deliberately designing 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to his one and only purpose. This is never the case in any of my alternatives.

I don't see your conclusion as valid. Both of our Gods created the same evolitionary process with a 99.9% loss rate.

DAVID: Mine knew exactly what He was doing…

Yes, yours knew he was using a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method to produce what you believe was his one and only goal...

DAVID: ...and yours experimented with no goal in sight. Makes us a lucky result.

dhw: How many more times must I remind you that in the first theory the goal of his experiments is to design a being like himself, while in the other two theories his goal is to do precisely what you are certain he does: to enjoy creating and to create things he will be interested in, including all the new ideas he or his creations might produce. We are not a lucky result in the first two theories, and even in the third (a free-for-all) he could have done a dabble if he wanted to. But all these theories are based on the the thory that there is a God. If there isn’t, then ALL life is a lucky result.

Your wobbly theories produce the same evolution with 99.9% loss.

DAVID: Mine knew of problems and produced safeguard systems of editing. How did your God produce those same edits, if not knowing consequences as He bumbled along?

dhw: I'm not concerned with his so-called safeguards, because if he and they exist, they could have been inserted when he became conscious of the damage he had done, and in any case they were woefully inadequate, since the diseases and other evils he created are still rampant, and the problem of theodicy is concerned with the evil that exists, not with the good or with safeguards.

I've bolded the overt use of propaganda, in which the repetition creates a 'truth'. The definition of rampant is: "Extending unchecked; unrestrained. Occurring without restraint and frequently, widely, or menacingly; rife." Nothing like that exists in real life. Your use is overblown.