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

by dhw, Wednesday, September 27, 2023, 13:56 (421 days ago) @ David Turell

For brevity’s sake, I am juggling posts.

DAVID (under “microbiome”): I repeat. My views are mine alone, totally consistent with ID.

dhw: As your views are yours alone, you can hardly attack my alternatives on the grounds that they are mine alone! You are quite right that your views concerning design are consistent with the theory of intelligent design. So are all my theistic alternatives. What is obviously not supported by ID is your unique theory that your God designed all species for the sole purpose of designing us plus food, although 99.9% were irrelevant to us plus food.*** Stop dodging.

DAVID: ID assumes God designed all of evolution. Not different than my theory.

dhw: Read the bold.

DAVID: I did and disagree with your conclusion about ID.

I strongly suspect that many ID-ers would be surprised to hear that they believe their God deliberately designed 99.9% of life forms that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose. However, it makes no difference whether they do or don’t – the fact remains that you yourself can make no sense of it.

Early pre-humans

DAVID: The Cambrian answers your straw man illogical premise. God designed as God needed to. He didn't mind how long it took.

dhw: Your belief that your God created Cambrian species “de novo” denotes that he could have designed us directly if he'd wanted to, but for unknown reasons he either chose or was forced to use the method bolded above.***.

DAVID: As God used evolution it was the best method available.

According to you, he also used direct creation, which is why you can’t understand why he chose the nonsensical bolded theory you impose on him.

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.

dhw: 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: Not a self in our way. Pure theology.
And:
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: We know our meanings as APPLIED TO US. We do not know if they carry the same meaning when applied to God.

So stop telling us that your God is all-powerful and all-knowing and selfless and all good!

Evolution and theodicy

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: It is not just my thinking but that of scholarly theists.

So if someone asks how an all-good God can possibly be the creator of evil, scholarly theists’ answer is to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that war, rape, murder, famine, flood, disease etc. aren’t worth discussing. This post begins with your statement that your views are yours alone. I suspect you're right.

TOTAL CELLS IN A HUMAN

DAVID: Several trillion cells reproduce every day or so. New mutations, mainly as mistakes occur infrequently. Much rarer mistakes result in cancer. The editing systems keep these mistakes at a very low ratio compared to the rate of cell splitting on a daily basis. This is the answer theodicy articles give to complaints about God's works: it is the only system that works. To enjoy this life we must accept it .

I have no objection to the philosophy that tells us to make the most of life, in spite of all the evil. That has nothing to do with the problem of theodicy, and I find it hard to accept that a God who creates a system which he knows will produce all kinds of evil is “all-good”. Apparently you and your fellow scholarly theists have the same problem, which is why you stick your heads in the sand. (See also the Feser thread.)