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

by David Turell , Monday, July 03, 2023, 13:19 (507 days ago) @ dhw

Theodicy

dhw: You forget that your all-knowing, first-cause God specially designed everything from the start, and knew what everything WOULD (not “might”) do. And so he knew humans would steal, rape, murder, oppress, exploit, wage war, and that bad bacteria and viruses would kill us, but he still went ahead. Maybe you’re right, but if so, you can hardly call him all-good, and that is the problem of theodicy!

You refuse to allow for balance in the results. Free will allows humans to act badly, a human problem for humans to solve. Most folks survive to old age while playing host to a necessary gut microbiome.

DAVID: What about the evil allowed by your God. Not answered yet.

dhw: I have distinguished between the deliberate creation of evil (as in your scenario) and evil as an unforeseen consequence of your God’s experiments, but this leads to the different question of why an all-good God does not intervene. I offered a list of alternative answers: he does not exist, he has gone away, he is dead, he doesn’t care, he enjoys watching it. I am not offering one specific answer to the problem of theodicy. I am offering alternatives, just as I offer alternatives to your illogical theory of evolution, which envisions your God as a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer.

Your first solution is that it is OK if a God doesn't know what will happen following His creations. That is a blundering poor example of a God. I view God as giving us the best arrangement He could, since He is all-knowing. We humans might complain, but this is the best that can be, no Garden of Eden.

David's theory of evolution

DAVID: Stop ignoring the point God chose to evolve us over time, with the result you deplore.

dhw: What result do I deplore? If God exists, he chose to evolve all life forms over time. That does not explain why, according to you, he chose to design 99 out of 100 organisms that had nothing to do with what, according to you, was his one and only purpose: to design us and our food. Stop dodging!

You deplore the way evolution works. It is a culling process which arrives at very successful organisms. God chose that method.

DAVID: Still seeking an answer I don't have. At each stage all have to eat, thus each stage is large.

dhw: The fact that all organisms have to eat does not explain why, according to you, your purposeful God specially designed all the organisms just so they could fight one another! I have taken up your earlier expression of certainty that he enjoys creating, and watches his creations with interest, as being a logical purpose in itself for his creation of the dog-eat-dog battle. We humans also enjoy creating things we can watch with interest, and as you have repeatedly agreed, if God exists, we may reflect him and share some of his thought patterns and emotions. (See below)

DAVID: The red is foolishness. Not just fighting but eating to survive!!! I agree God and we have similarities.

dhw: Why don’t you read what I write? Of course they fight to survive! I’ve now put it in red for you above! And I’ve asked you why your God wanted them to fight, and I’ve offered you an explanation. Since you acknowledge that we reflect your God, do you now accept the logic of that explanation?

DAVID: Wonderful, you recognize food is necessary. But you ignore how necessary it is. Don't you eat two/three times a day? Then you berate me because I cannot give you God's reasons for His choices of methods. I simply accept what God did. Do you know all your God's reasons? He used evolution also. Please answer.

dhw: Please stop pretending that I’m an idiot. Of course food is/was necessary for all organisms, including the 99% that had no connection with us and our food. I berate you because you offer us illogical theories about what your God did and why he did it, but you insist that he did what you say he did for reasons which make no sense even to you. I offer you alternatives, and your sole reason for rejecting them is that they humanise him, although you agree that he and we have similarities.

Our possible similarities with God do not excuse a God who thinks like a human as your "solution" God does. It is not illogical to assume God chose to evolve us from bacteria. Makes perfect snese to me.