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

by David Turell , Sunday, September 10, 2023, 17:08 (230 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Accusations I have no sensible reasons are not an argument.

dhw; Of course they are an argument! If your theory doesn’t make sense even to you, maybe it’s wrong! You went on to accuse me of distorting your theory.

You attack Raup's statistical results and reach an irrational premise about God's use of evolution because He had the obvious purpose of producing humans. Adler's argument is no natural process could have done it. Your attempt at theism is unrecognizable.

dhw: We only know of one process concerning the evolution of life. One moment you say he “chose” this process, and the next he “had to” use it, which means he had no choice. Why? If the only thing your all-powerful God wanted was us and our food, then he would have been perfectly capable – according to your next comment – of creating us directly:

DAVID: He created the Cambrian organisms directly, but humans were evolved by Him.

dhw: So he was able to create species directly, but he had to design 99.9 that were irrelevant, except that he didn’t have to but he chose to and you don’t know why.

I've explained 99.9% loss is a required result in the evolutionary process. You make a mockery of a statistical result from a method God chose to use. You ha ve agreed in the past God had that right.

DAVID: Just as you make a mockery as a theist. God is a personage like no other person. Discussing Him in our language in only suggestive of what and who He might be.

dhw: Of course we can only use our language to suggest what he might be – if he exists. And we both know what our language means. There is no “allegory” if you are sure he enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, and is selfless. The only problem is that it’s impossible to imagine any “personage” enjoying something and being interested without having a self.

You found the problem, finally. God is selfless so when we think He enjoys, etc., it must be in an allegorical sense as Adler advises.

Evolution and theodicy

DAVID: What theists say about theodicy is what I have presented previously. Evil is always a secondhand result of good necessary processes.

dhw: I can’t help wondering how you know they’re all as happy as you are with the knowledge that their God knew in advance that his inventions would result in war, murder, rape, floods, famines and disease, but went ahead and was powerless to prevent all the suffering these evils have caused. Or do they emulate you and pretend that these matters are too minor to take seriously?

DAVID: They take them as seriously as I do in the perspective I've offered.

dhw: And are they all as happy as you with the explanation above?

DAVID: Yes.

dhw: Not having read every opinion of every theist, I’m in no position to contradict you, but since nobody knows whether God even exists, and if he does, nobody knows his thoughts, motives or feelings, I’m surprised they all take such a negative view of him.

My views of God are mine alone. My theodicy review of theist articles is accurate. You purposely conflate two discussions.

DAVID: […] Holocaust from evil free-willed Hitler. (A side effect!)

dhw: I’m surprised you hadn’t realized that “millions” suffer. According to you, your all-knowing God went ahead deliberately creating a system he knew would result in the free-willed Hitler & Co slaughtering 6 million Jews. I’m not arguing against free will. I’m asking why/how an all-good God could knowingly create a system that would lead to such horrific evil.

DAVID: I accept He did.

dhw: Your acceptance does not answer the question how you can reconcile your God’s advance awareness that his invention of free will would result in Hitler & Co slaughtering 6 million Jews, with the theory that he is all-good? If your all-powerful, all-knowing God is the first cause of everything that has ever existed, where did evil come from? (The discussion continues under “microbiome”.)

Simple answer repeated: evil is a side effect of God's good works.