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

by dhw, Saturday, July 22, 2023, 10:57 (280 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] God creates with the simple purpose of creating.

dhw: Not according to you. He approached creation with the one and only purpose of designing us and our food. […]

DAVID: The intended endpoint does not distort God's wish to create, as you try to claim.

For as long as I can remember in the history of this website, you have told us that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food. However, you have also agreed that he enjoys creating, and watches his creations with interest, and I have suggested that since according to you he specially designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food, maybe his purpose was to enjoy creating things he could watch with interest. You pooh-pooh the idea as being too “humanized”, as in your next response:

DAVID: Stop it. My God creates simply to create what He wishes. Enjoyment and interest are very secondary events. He is not your over-humanized God.

If he exists, then of course he would create what he wishes. That is the major problem with your theory of evolution: he only wishes to create us and our food, and so he creates 99 out 100 species that have nothing to do with his one and only wish. I am the one who proposes that he wishes to create those 99, and it makes perfect sense that he does so because he enjoys creating, and finds this vast and changing variety of life forms interesting to watch.

dhw: […] It is YOU who have used all these “humanizing” terms! Why are you now criticising them?

DAVID: When seen as secondary to purpose, they are not humanizing like your God.

Great! I propose that enjoyment and interest are not secondary to purpose but ARE purpose, so according to your logic, they are not “humanizing”! And indeed, if we reflect him, as you say we do, then our enjoyment of creating interesting things will reflect his, i.e. we are not “humanizing” God, but God has given us some of his characteristics.

DAVID: […] Your frail human logic is not God's. God chose to evolve us for His own unknown reasons, my usual response.

We don’t know God’s logic. Your usual response is a cop-out, because according to your theory, your God also chose to “evolve” (= individually design) 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us, although we and our food were his only purpose, and this theory is so absurd that you can’t think of a single reason why he would act so illogically. Maybe your God is not the messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer you take him for.

There is more repetition until our final exchange.

DAVID: And sure He is totally interested since He has no idea what is coming next. And this is the same guy who made our universe and started life? Totally incompatible aspects of your so-called God.

dhw: There is nothing incompatible about a God who starts life in order to have something interesting to watch, and therefore creates something interesting to watch. The only incompatible theories we have so far are yours concerning an all-powerful God who is forced to design 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to his purpose, and an all-good God who deliberately creates evil.

DAVID: My God is not 'forced' to evolve us. He chose to do it. All evil is a byproduct of His good works.

I did not say he was forced to evolve us! Stop misquoting! Firstly, according to you he was forced to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food because in his messy, cumbersome, inefficient way he couldn’t think of any other method. And secondly, according to you, he knew in advance that he was creating evil as well as good, but he deliberately went ahead all the same, because it would provide some sort of challenge. Your all-good God therefore deliberately created evil.