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

by dhw, Thursday, August 10, 2023, 13:10 (261 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: How can he possibly enjoy it [creating] without feeling any enjoyment himself? And why would he create if he didn’t want to?

DAVID: God's enjoyment is God's form of enjoyment, not ours. Of course, God does what He wants to do.
And:
DAVID: How God enjoys is not the same as how we enjoy. Thus allegorical.

An allegory is a symbol that represents an idea. In Pilgrim’s Progress, Christian journeys through the Slough of Despond, the Valley of Humiliation, Vanity Fair etc. That’s an allegory. It’s you who used the word enjoyment, and you knew precisely what you meant by it. The word means to take pleasure in something. If you don’t mean what you say, then why say it?

dhw: Your theoretical, all-knowing God knew in advance that by creating people and bacteria he was creating war, murder, rape, as well as countless diseases and other forms of suffering. Theodicy asks how his creation of evil can be equated with the theory that God is all-good. […]

DAVID: You ignore the needed good and concentrate on the side effects. Free will allows people to be evil. Necessary free-living bacteria cannot be controlled by God to only do good.

dhw: Your attribute 4: God is Omnipotent – He is All Powerful.
Your attribute 5: God is Omniscient – He is All-Knowing.
Your attribute 7: God is wise – He is full of perfect, Unchanging Wisdom
(DAVID: This is religious teaching which I accept.)

dhw: So your all-knowing God knew in advance that his creations would produce the evils listed above, and in his perfect wisdom he must have wanted the evil “allowed” by free will, and despite his omnipotence he had no control over the evils committed by bacteria. Is this what your theologians tell you?

DAVID: Theodicy articles I've reviewed all take my approach, which you abhor. God asks us not to sin, i.e., create evil. God knew necessary free-living bacteria cannot be controlled but are absolutely required for us to live properly.

Please stop hiding behind other people’s work. YOUR all-knowing God knew in advance that we WOULD sin, so what would be the point in asking us not to? And how can an all-powerful God be powerless to prevent the evil consequences of his own inventions? You say your God does what he wants to do. So he wanted to create the evil he knew would happen. I wonder which “theodicy articles” take your approach.

Parasites can produce good outcomes

DAVID: All living organisms have freedom of action which means God cannot control their activities which can be bad for us.

dhw: So your new solution to the problem of theodicy is that your God created a free-for-all. But since he is omnipotent, we can only assume that a free-for-all is what he wanted. And if a free-for-all explains the existence of evil, why would it not also explain the history of evolution itself? […]

dhw: ATTRIBUTE 3: God is Self-Sufficient – He Has No Needs.
He doesn’t need us, so why would he bother to create us, let alone the other 99% that had no connection with us? And one more question: why do you think he bothered to create life in the first place?

DAVID: God did those things because He wanted to.

Did what things? As above, if he wanted to designed species irrelevant to what you say was his purpose, maybe your interpretation of his purpose is wrong. If he wanted to create the forces of evil, then how can he be all-good? Now please tell us why you think he wanted to create us, and why he wanted to create life in the first place.

DAVID: He did not need to, because He has no needs.

I keep rejecting your deliberate insertion of “need”. I never used the term. I agree with you that your God, if he exists, would do what he wants to do. Please answer the two questions.

DAVID: Your free-for-all is our term for the dog-eat-dog world where all life has to eat to survive. If God could have created a life without energy needs, He would have.

My free-for-all goes beyond dog-eat-dog (though energy can be acquired without the cruelty of dog-eat-dog) to speciation, as it would explain what you cannot explain: namely, the vast variety of life forms that have come and gone and have/had no relevance to your God’s sole purpose in creating life: us and our food.

DAVID: On the other hand, your so-called God needs enjoyment from directionless free-for-alls, needs to experiment since he has no goals in mind, and is innocent of His mistakes because He is blissfully unaware of His unforeseen consequences of His blundering actions.

Again, he does not “need” anything. Enjoyment and interest do not denote need. Stop putting up such straw men. Experimentation is not goal-less. I offered you two forms: one the goal of creating a being like himself, and the other the enjoyment of discovery. I’m always surprised by your implicit condemnation of your perfect God’s “mistakes”, which fits in with your firm belief that despite his all-goodness he knew perfectly well that he was creating evil, just as with his perfect wisdom and omniscience he knew perfectly well that his method of achieving his sole purpose was cumbersome and inefficient. I wonder what your fellow theologians would make of your theories.