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

by dhw, Thursday, August 24, 2023, 11:16 (247 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Why do you think he would deliberately have designed 99% of “novelties” (strange forms) that had no connection with us if his only purpose was to design the 1% that would lead to us?*** Your attempts to dodge the question are becoming increasingly absurd.

DAVID: The absurdity is your constant downplaying the issue of food supply for over eight billion humans some of whom are undernourished.

There is no issue here! Humans need food, just like every other life form, and humans are destroying the environment which provides them with that food, which is leading to catastrophe. How does that answer the bolded question *** above? Your dodging is becoming farcical. Please stop it.

DAVID: The current survivors are our food.

Correct. See question *** above.

DAVID: The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation. (dhw's bold)

Precisely […] I have noted your comment, and will quote it whenever you pretend your theory makes sense!

DAVID: I view your analysis as lacking common sense. You agree God chose to evolve us and then complain about His method, but only then when I say God had a goal of humans.

Not “a” goal, but “the” one and only goal, which is why you cannot answer question *** above, and continue to dodge it.

DAVID: Then you pop up with a God who achieves humans as a surprise.

I have offered three logical, theistic alternatives to your theory, and your only reason for rejecting them is that they “humanize” God, although you agree that we reflect God and therefore share some of his thought patterns and emotions.

DAVID: The history of evolution is God created.

That is not history, but as an agnostic, I am happy to discuss all the theistic implications of the history.

DAVID: I've changed nothing, while your view is a distortion of what happened, claiming the 99.9% were unnecessary. Without them we won't eat.

It is you who say the 99.9% were unnecessary, and you agree that only the 0.1% (see “current survivors” above) evolved into us and our food. Hence the question *** which you continue to dodge. You have admitted that your theory makes no sense to you, so why do you continue to defend it?

Theodicy

dhw: How do you know that your all-powerful God was incapable of creating a Garden of Eden?

Not answered.

dhw: Your all-knowing God knew perfectly well that some humans and some bugs would produce evil, because he made them that way. Even if we accept your strange theory that bugs must be free to kill us in order for them to be free to keep us alive, why must humans be free to kill one another? (NB I have no objection to the theory of free will. I only object to your answers to the problem of theodicy, i.e. why and how an all-good God can create evil: 1) evil is too minor to discuss, or 2) your all-powerful God was powerless to prevent it even though he knew it would happen.)

DAVID: God can prevent human evil, with free will present, only by killing humans.

So according to you, he deliberately created humans and bugs in full knowledge that they would kill each other and would create all the suffering that we associate with evil. If we assume that your God is the first cause of everything, how does the existence of such evil fit in with the common concept of God as being all-good? That is the question posed by theodicy, and it seems that your only answers are (1) forget about evil, which is only a minor matter, or (2) despite being all-powerful, he had no choice. You also conveniently forget your own belief that your God would have created what he wanted to create. So we have two puzzles now: Why would an all-good God want to create evil, and why would an all-powerful God be powerless to prevent evil?