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

by David Turell @, Monday, August 07, 2023, 16:20 (264 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Humans act to produce enjoyment for themselves. My God does not need self-enjoyment from His creations.
And later:
He creates without a smidgen of self-interest or self-entertainment.

dhw: Why do you keep inserting the word “need”, which suggests some sort of inadequacy? If you enjoy a good meal, a Beethoven symphony, or a nice chat with your wife, and I enjoy writing a poem or play, does that mean we’re “needy”? It’s you who said he enjoys creating. How can he possibly enjoy it without feeling any enjoyment himself? And why would he create if he didn't want to do so?

God is selfless, not requiring human needs.


Later:

dhw: […] this reference concerned the fact that the unexpected is always more interesting that the expected […] – hence the argument for an unpredictable free-for-all evolution, which would be far more interesting for God than a predictable Garden of Eden which you said would bore him.

DAVID: It would bore you also.

dhw: Nice to see you agreeing with yourself that he would be bored, like me. Next perhaps you will find yourself agreeing that he might logically have designed the “challenge” in order to prevent himself from being bored, though, according to you, he would not relieve his boredom out of the desire to relieve his boredom.

To repeat: God is selfless. He does not need our personal requirements for entertainments.

dhw: Your all-powerful, all-knowing God can’t control the evil he knew he was creating, but you think you can solve the problem of how an all-good God can create evil by telling us that there is more good than evil. A great way to solve a problem – by pretending it isn’t a problem.

DAVID: It is a problem but the proportionality of good far outweighs the bad. Would you give up free will to wipe out evil people?

dhw: You never stop dodging. The proportion, even if what you say is true, is totally irrelevant to the question of your God’s nature, and so is the question of what I would like your God to do! Theodicy asks how an all-good God can create evil. Your answer is that we shouldn’t bother to think about the evil.

Evil comes from the good: free will is good but creates evil people. Most bacteria do a required good as in our intestinal microbiome. Our cells split trillions of times a day perfectly, but a bad split brings cancer, despite exiting editing mechanisms.


DAVID: Would you prefer to live in the Garden of Eden? God gave us the brain to handle the challenges He expected.

dhw; Of course I would prefer to live in a Garden of Eden, where people did not have to suffer the dreadful consequences of war, disease, flood, famine, murder, rape etc., which your all-knowing God apparently foresaw when he designed all the agents of such suffering. I’m incredibly lucky to have lived a life largely untouched by these evils, and have been free to enjoy all the good wonders. Now please answer the above question: why do you think he wanted to present us with a challenge?

Your own proportionality of a good life is the tale for most folks. The evil you see is the secondhand results of the required good.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum