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

by David Turell , Wednesday, September 27, 2023, 17:29 (213 days ago) @ dhw

For brevity’s sake, I am juggling posts.

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

dhw: 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.

The bold would make no sense to ID'ers.

Early pre-humans

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

dhw: 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.

God, as Creator, can create as He wishes. Perfectly understood!

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.

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

Silly. We are discussing terms that apply to God's personality, not his works.

Evolution and theodicy

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.

dhw: 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.

I'm simply repeating scholarly conclusions about theodicy.

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 .

dhw: 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.)

We like God's good sand.