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

by dhw, Friday, September 15, 2023, 11:06 (314 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The 99.9% loss came from God's evolution producing an evolved Earth with its current huge bush of life which is our food supply.

dhw: That does not explain why your God “had to” or “chose to” design 99.9% of species irrelevant to his purpose.

DAVID: Answered many times before: God chose to evolve us. It was the method He felt He had to use as best available.

dhw: So he could have used other methods, e.g. he could have designed us plus food directly instead of designing 99.9 species that had no connection with us plus food, but for reasons which make no sense to you or me, he felt he "had to" design them and then lose them (apparently relying on luck to get rid of them).

DAVID: Live with this black box. I do.

You live with the knowledge that your theory makes no sense because you cannot bear the thought that your nonsensical theory might be wrong.:-|

dhw: I presume you know what you mean when you say your God is “selfless”. What did you mean when you said you were sure he “enjoyed” creating and was “interested” in his creations?

DAVID: Just that!!! Our words applied to God allegorically.

dhw: Enjoy means to gain pleasure from something. Do you or do you not think your God gains pleasure from creating?

DAVID: Yes, in His own special way.

We all enjoy things in our own special way. Thank you for confirming your belief that your God gains pleasure from creating. How is it possible for him to gain pleasure in his own special way if he doesn’t have a self?

DAVID: […] we know what words mean in our level of existence, but we really do not know how they apply to God and His personality.

dhw: We don’t even know if God exists, let alone what attributes he does or doesn’t have. However, WE know what we mean when we use terms like enjoy, interested, all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing, and if you don’t think they mean what you think they mean, you should stop using them altogether.

DAVID: I have fully explained the ways they can be used.

You have not explained how any of them can mean anything other than what you and I understand by the words. You merely resort to obfuscations with terms like ”allegory” and “analogy”, although it is totally impossible to regard them as the symbols or comparisons that those two terms denote.

Evolution and theodicy

dhw: […] once again, how can all-knowing God deliberately create a system which he knows will result in evil and yet be all-good?[…]

DAVID: I've given you the current answers.

dhw: You’ve given me the following answers: 1) evil is such a minor matter that we don’t need to discuss it; 2) Your all-knowing God “had to” or “chose to” (you keep switching) design a system which he knew in advance would result in all the forms of evil we know, and he is all-good but actually wants to create evil because if he created an Eden, humans wouldn’t be able to invent “something else”.

DAVID: The bold is nonsense. Evil is a byproduct of God's works.

dhw: The bold refers to your statement thatan idealistic Eden would not push us to invent something else”. Again: If your God deliberately created a system which he knew would lead to evil, how can he be all-good? And why do you use such a term if it doesn’t mean what you mean but is “allegorical!” or “analogous” or “metaphorical”? And if your God is all-powerful, why do you think he "had to" design something he didn't want to design?

DAVID: The good from free will greatly outweighs the resultant human caused evil. Your proportionalities are backwards. I'll stick with Dayenu.

Back to your first solution to the problem of theodicy: Let’s not bother to answer any of the above questions: evil is such a minor matter that we don’t need to discuss it.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum