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

by dhw, Monday, September 11, 2023, 10:48 (437 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: You attack Raup's statistical results…

They are irrelevant to the question why, according to your theory, a God whose one and only purpose was to produce us plus food “had to” produce 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food.***

DAVID: ….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.

The ID argument is that no “natural” process could have produced the complexities of all species. The irrational premise is the theory bolded above***. You admit that you have no idea why your God would have used such a method to achieve such a purpose. I suggest that an irrational theory that makes no sense to the theorist himself is probably wrong.

DAVID: 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 have agreed in the past God had that right.

I agree that the vast majority of species have been lost, and you agree that they were irrelevant to what you believe was your God’s purpose. As first cause, your all-powerful God therefore invented a system which forced him to design 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. One moment he “had to”, the next moment he “chose to”. Your self-contradiction is yet more evidence that, as you admit, your theory makes no sense even to you.

DAVID: […] 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.

DAVID: 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.

Stop messing about with language. If “selfless” means “selfless”, “enjoy” means “enjoy”. YOU know what you mean by both terms, and so you are sure that your God takes pleasure in creating and watching his creations. How can he do so without a “self”? Why do you use words if you don’t think they mean what they mean to you?

Evolution and theodicy

DAVID: What theists say about theodicy is what I have presented previously. […]

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.

DAVID: My views of God are mine alone.

Then stop pretending that theists agree with your explanation!

DAVID: My theodicy review of theist articles is accurate. You purposely conflate two discussions.

There is only one discussion. You believe that your God knew in advance that his inventions would result in war, murder, rape etc., but went ahead and was powerless to prevent all the suffering these evils have caused. You claimed that theists agreed with you, according to every article you know. Do they or don’t they?

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?

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

Answered under “Microbiome (Back to theodicy)”.