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

by dhw, Wednesday, July 26, 2023, 12:33 (276 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: As usual our disagreement relates to God's possible personality patterns. An all-knowing God knows the future, so how can He be interested in something He knows will happen?

Precisely. You have stated explicitly that your God is interested in his creations. Knowing what will happen would be boring. And so it makes perfect sense to have him create something that will produce “unexpected results” – the expression you have used in relation to the free will you say he gave us humans. Why not apply the same reasoning to other life forms? Instead of this crazy idea of your God having to design 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with the only one (plus food) that he wants to produce – he could have produced a mechanism to design countless “unexpected results”.

DAVID: In TV dramas the writers keep up interest by writing in the unexpected events. In re-reading the script I doubt the author finds enjoyment at a viewer's level.

Different authors have different modes of writing, but I think you will find that the majority are constantly surprised by the different twists and turns their narrative takes once they have started writing. I am one of those who rarely know what is coming. That is part of the excitement engendered by the creative process.

DAVID (transferred from “More miscellany”): Of course an all-knowing God expects the unexpected, while humans don't.

Not the point. Did he give humans free will so that we could produce results HE did not expect (which would enhance his interest in us), or did he know in advance every decision that we would make (boring for him)?

DAVID: I view God as creator of reality and therefore of the historical evolutionary process. It was His unforced method.

dhw: If God exists, I would also regard him as the creator of reality and of the historical evolutionary process. But I would not regard him as the messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer of a method which meant he had to design 99 out of 100 species for the sole purpose of designing us and our food. Will you please stop trying to hide the absurdity of your theories behind these perfectly acceptable generalisations.

DAVID: Stop distorting my view of God, who brilliantly designed all living forms is stages that resembled the way Darwin theorized about evolution.

dhw: And yet again you ignore the all-important and completely irrational part of your theory bolded above.

DAVID: That God chose to evolve us is an entirely reasonable position.

If God exists and if we believe in evolution, then of course it is entirely reasonable to argue that he chose to evolve us and every other organism that ever lived. What is entirely unreasonable is the theory bolded above, which you continue to gloss over with your vague generalizations. Please stop it!

DAVID: Evil is a small partial byproduct of God's good works.

dhw: This “small byproduct” causes untold suffering, as your God knew it would. And one cannot solve the problem of theodicy by pretending there is no problem.

DAVID: I admit there is a problem. Evil exists.

dhw: Thank you. Perhaps you will also admit that your theory, which has him deliberately creating evil as a “challenge”, runs totally counter to the concept of an all-good God.

DAVID: See new article here about soil viruses at work.

dhw: Two days ago you wrote: “I admit there is a problem. Evil exists.” Do you or do you not admit that there are viruses which cause great suffering, and according to you, your all-knowing God knew in advance that they would, and so his deliberate creation of such “evil” is part of the problem of theodicy. Your solutions so far appear to be (a) God is mostly good, so forget the evil, or (b) your God knowingly created evil, which can only mean he is not all-good.

DAVID: Please try to remember good bacteria and viruses are good unless they get out of their proper doing-good environments. Like free will is a trade-off, so are good bugs that turn bad. God designed the only system of life that can work. Remember He is considered all-knowing.

I can hardly forget your theory that he is all-knowing when it means that he knew perfectly well that some of his bacteria and viruses would create untold suffering, but he went ahead all the same. And although he is all-powerful, he was powerless to control the evil effects he knew would result from his choice of method - except that in another of your theories he deliberately created evil as a challenge, i.e. he wanted it, because a Garden of Eden would have been boring. As for his designing the only system that could work, a few days ago you wrote: “an all-powerful God had many methods at his command”. But he chose one which you ridicule as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient, and you refuse to consider any other possible purposes and/or methods.