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

by dhw, Wednesday, July 05, 2023, 11:11 (505 days ago) @ David Turell

Theodicy

DAVID: It is still a measure of proportionality. God gave us the only system available and placed editing systems to control biochemical errors. God deliberately gave humans free will so what we do wrong is our problem, not His. It is still the concept of 'Dayenu' with you complaining.
And:
DAVID: 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.

“Proportionality” is irrelevant. Theodicy is only concerned with the origin of evil. Why “available”? You make it sound as if your Creator of all things popped into a shop and was told: “Sorry, that’s all we have.” Of course what we do wrong is our problem. But the question is why an all-good God would create the possibility of evil in the first place. Why was he incapable of designing a Garden of Eden? (To complete the metaphor: why did he create the serpent and the forbidden fruit?) I’m not complaining. I’m asking the age-old question how a God who creates evil can be all-good. So far, your answer has been: ignore evil, it doesn’t count “proportionally”.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: I didn’t say it was OK. I am not passing judgement. I am proposing that if he didn’t know the outcome, he cannot be accused of consciously creating evil (the Walter Raleigh syndrome.)

DAVID: So your God gets a pass since He is a know-nothing?

A know-nothing would not be capable of designing anything. Two possible answers to the theodicy question are that he did not know in advance all the outcomes of his experiments, or he did not know (and did not want to know) in advance the outcomes of the free-for-all he set in motion.

DAVID: You describe a God of no controls over what He creates, so He can enjoy the resultant mess and chaos of free-for-all. Grisly!!

But you yourself keep telling us that he has no control over the bad bacteria and viruses and humans! They are free to do their dirty deeds! The difference between our theories is that your God knows he is creating evil-doers but deliberately goes ahead all the same, whereas I propose two ways in which his creation of evil might not be deliberate. The “mess and chaos” caused by evil is the same, whether it is the result of a free-for-all or your God’s deliberate creation of evil. You are certain that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and I agree that a God who enjoys watching the mess and chaos is grisly. However, I’ve offered various reasons for his non-intervention. Please tell us your own explanation.

David's theory of evolution

DAVID: […] It is a culling process which arrives at very successful organisms. God chose that method.

dhw: […] If God exists, I agree completely. […] (I have omitted the rest, as I am forced to repeat the same argument below.)

DAVID: So we agree. God wanted the 99%. I remind you, early in our discussions YOU raised the issue of 'why evolve' when direst creation was the better option.

We do not agree. (See below.) I raised the issue only because you insist that humans plus food were his sole purpose. In your nonsensical theory, he does NOT want the 99%: for some unknown reason he is forced to design them, although he knows that they are not necessary for his purpose – hence your description of them as failures, and of his method as messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Only in my proposals are they successful, because his purpose is to create the ever changing variety of life forms which constitutes the history of evolution.

DAVID: 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 sense to me.

dhw: You have demolished your own “humanising” argument again and again by agreeing that we reflect him. Of course Darwin’s theory that we are descended from bacteria is not illogical, and he allows for your God as the originator of the process. What, for the thousandth time, is illogical is your claim that your all-powerful, all-knowing God chose to fulfil his one and only purpose of designing us plus food by designing 99 out of 100 life forms that had no connection with us plus food. When will you stop dodging?

DAVID: Above you just agreed: "I agree completely. Your God WANTED the 99% as part of the ever-changing variety of life’s history." You can't have it both ways.

More dodging! You wrote that evolution “is a culling process which arrives at very successful organisms.” I agree. But your 99% were NOT successful: they were failures. It’s you who can’t have it both ways!

DAVID: As for our possible resemblance to God, it doesn't negate your God's obvious human thinking.

Of course it doesn’t. It supports his human thinking. Thank you.