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

by dhw, Monday, July 10, 2023, 13:09 (500 days ago) @ David Turell

Theodicy

DAVID: Free will means humans producing unexpected results. (dhw's bold)

dhw: So if that is what he wanted from us, why do you refuse to even contemplate the possibility that he might have created the process of evolution as a free-for-all because he wanted unexpected results?

DAVID: I have responded to your very slanted question above many times. Bacteria and viruses overwhelmingly do good when all results are balanced. The same applies to humans.

That is your way of dodging the theodicy question: why and how would an all-good God create evil? Your answer here: let’s ignore the evil and focus on the good. My question is why, if your God deliberately gave us free will because he wanted “unexpected results”, the same purpose cannot underlie the higgledy-piggledy process of evolution, with all its comings and goings. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: I think the time for an intervening G0d is over.

dhw: Please tell us why.

DAVID: No evidence of overt Godly actions for many centuries, while I am aware Catholicism accepts miracles.

A misunderstanding. Of course I agree that there is no divine intervention! My question is why your all-good God is not intervening to put an end to all the suffering he has created.

dhw: And what do you think might be his reason for creating evil and creating our big brains to produce evil of their own as well as to fight against evil? […]

DAVID: Evil is a byproduct of all that is good. Bugs in wrong places and humans with freewill choosing evil.

But you have told us that your all-knowing God knew this would happen when he first created the bugs and us. And since your God is all-purposeful and all-powerful, the question is why he went ahead, and your answer is that he wanted to challenge us. So I now ask why you think your all purposeful God wanted to create the “challenge”. Please answer.

David's theory of evolution

DAVID: Since God chose to develop humans in a stepwise fashion through evolution, the 99.9% culled out are absolutely necessary.

dhw: In your nonsensical theory, the problem is not the culling but the deliberate creation of 99 unnecessary organisms which have to be culled! […]

DAVID: God chose to evolve us for His own reasons, rather than directly create us.

“For his own reasons” can only mean you have no idea why your God chose to design 99 out of 100 life forms which had no connection with the single purpose you impose on him, despite your bluster about their being “absolutely necessary”. In brief, your theory makes no sense to you, but still you cling to it. A blatant example of what, on another thread, you call “preconceived bias”.

DAVID: God's reason is He wants us to use our big brain. A Garden of Eden existence is boring. Life is meant to be challenging.

dhw: Boring for whom?

DAVID: For us.

Answered indirectly by my next comment:

dhw: If we continue to use the Eden metaphor, why do you think your all-knowing God deliberately created the serpent, knowing the havoc it would cause? Who “meant” life to be challenging, with all its diseases and wars etc.? Your God is interested in his creations. You have him also wanting unexpected results.

DAVID: "Unexpected results"? My purposeful God knows exactly what to expect.

You have just told us (now bolded) “free will means humans producing unexpected results”. If your all-purposeful God created free will which produces unexpected results, it is only logical to assume that he wanted to create something which would produce results he did not expect! Who else was around to do the expecting at the time when he created our free will?

dhw: Put the two together, and you have a logical explanation for the history of evolution, a possible explanation for theodicy, and a clear purpose: A Garden of Eden would be boring for your God.

DAVID: I agree God would be bored by Eden, as a theoretical consideration.

At last you have cottoned on! Yes, all our discussions – including those on God’s existence – are “theoretical considerations”. The theory that God would otherwise be bored fits in with the theory that he created life because he enjoyed creating and wanted to create things he would find interesting. This theory explains the history of evolution, including the 99 out of 100 species that leave you clueless. It also answers the theodicy problem, as the creation of a free-for-all with unexpected results at least exonerates your God from the accusation that he deliberately created evil. Of course it does not explain his non-intervention, but I have offered reasons for that too.

dhw: NB All of your negative views concerning your God’s inefficiency as a designer and his deliberate, callous (possibly sadistic) creation of evil and its terrible consequences may be correct. My alternative explanations are no less theoretical than your own, and in some cases can also be interpreted as negative. We don’t even know if your God exists, let alone how he thinks.

DAVID: Same confusion on your part. God is an excellent designer using a cumbersome stepwise evolutionary method.

So a designer who designs a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method to achieve the goal you impose on him is an excellent designer. Welcome to Wonderland.