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

by dhw, Monday, August 28, 2023, 08:15 (451 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?***

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.

DAVID: Your *** ignores the definition of evolution.

The usual definition of evolution is the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms. How does that answer the question ***?

DAVID: 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.

So why did he also wish to produce the diversity and complexity of the 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food? See the question*** which you keep dodging.

DAVID: A loss of 99.9% of organisms is observed and considered to be a result of the process.

Of course it is a result of the process. But the process and purpose you believe in lead to the question *** which you keep dodging.

DAVID: I view *** as an irrational invention.

*** points out the irrationality of your theory, which you yourself find incomprehensible: “The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation.” Since it makes no sense, maybe he did not choose this purpose or this method.

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

Your “humanization” argument has been demolished over and over again by your agreement that we reflect your God, and it is no defence of your theory or of your endless non sequiturs to divert attention away from its irrationality.

DAVID: 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.

I also believe that if God exists, he would do what he wished. How does that answer question ***?

Evolution and Theodicy

DAVID: Eden without competition was a dead end.

dhw: Since when was “competition” synonymous with “evil”? Do you think the world would come to an end if we didn’t have war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease? ***

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: 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.

I have stated no such thing. You are tying yourself in knots. It is your belief in your theories about your God’s purpose, method and responsibility for evil which are irrational – as proven by your inability to answer question *** and your admission that your only answer to the problem of theodicy is to say we should ignore it. Please stop dodging!

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.

That does mean the theory is godless.

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?

DAVID: What we deal with is the only form of life God could produce...

How do you know? If your all-powerful God does what he wants to do, maybe this is the form of life he wanted to produce, as opposed to his being forced to produce what he didn’t want to produce (99% of irrelevant species, and all the suffering caused by his creation of evil).

DAVID: ...and it involves free acting molecules and bugs free to act.

So if he is willing to give up control over molecules and bugs and humans’ free will, why can’t he be willing to give up control over speciation?