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

by David Turell , Sunday, August 27, 2023, 16:21 (452 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My defense is whatever God does is OK with me. I don't need His reasons, only you do.

dhw: But you insist on giving him just one reason for creating life: to design us and our food – hence the question*** which you keep dodging. The existence of the 99% is history. So maybe the reason for their existence is not what you say it is.

Your *** ignores the definition of evolution. The history of the only process existing shows that it developed a huge bush of life currently culminating in humans, the most complex form of life to be produced. The obvious drive is toward diversity and complexity. It fits perfectly with a God who wished to produce humans and their food. A loss of 99.9% of organisms is observed and considered to be a result of the process. I view *** as an irrational invention.

DAVID: The giant food supply, provided by God, is barely sufficient, as shown by starvation on the world. Your *** is specious reasoning.

dhw: No one would deny the problem of starvation. That has nothing to do with the question ***. Please stop this silly game. You believe in a bit of non-sense, produce one non-sequitur after another, and refuse to consider any logical alternatives.

Your inventive alternatives ae just-so stories about a very human God who thinks as we do.

DAVID: Not nonsense but more careful reasoning than yours. […]

dhw: Your careful reasoning has led you to admit: “The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation.” That is the question *** which you keep dodging because you know the theory is non-sense.

Not knowing God's reasons for evolving us is in consequential to one who believes. God did what He wished and we are here to discuss it. Dayenu.

Evolution and Theodicy

DAVID: Reference was to the Biblical Garden of Eden, not the whole present world.

Eden is an image for a world without evil. Please answer the question. Meanwhile,Your two answers to the problem of theodicy are:

dhw: (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?

Your only answer is to repeat that bacteria etc. are 99% good, which means we should avoid the problem.

DAVID: I can do no better.

dhw: You can’t answer the question ***, and you refuse to face the problem of evil, but you praise your own careful reasoning and stick to your irrational beliefs.

You claim that my beliefs in God are related to your problems with my thoughts about God. Therefore, you must think my belief in God is irrational as you state.

DAVID: […] Your theistic logic is always to humanize God.

dhw: Enjoyment and interest, experimenting, getting new ideas, creating a free-for-all are no more human than your messy, inefficient version of his methods, or his desire for total control. They have the added advantage of answering the question*** which you cannot answer, and which you desperately try to dodge with one non sequitur after another.

DAVID: A God who is always acting purposely with set goals is my view of a consistently theistic God as most philosophers of theism accept.

dhw: And if he exists, I accept that too, and my theistic alternatives offer purposeful action and goals. I do not accept your non-answers to question ***, and to the problem of theodicy.

dhw: A God who deliberately allows freedom of design, just as he allows freedom of action, is not “godless”.

DAVID: Not any God recognized in the literature. Your personal skewed view.

dhw: In what literature do you find your messy, inefficient designer, or your all-good God deliberately and knowingly creating evil because a Garden of Eden would have been a dead end, or your all-powerful God being powerless to prevent it? Why don’t you stick to the arguments?

What we deal with is the only form of life God could produce, and it involves free acting molecules and bugs free to act. It is all fine 99.999% of the time, but with eight billion- plus humans, mistakes add up presenting our issue with theodicy. I am answering your very skewed view of the results.