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

by David Turell , Wednesday, October 04, 2023, 17:33 (206 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: [..] do all your experts agree with you that your God specially designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose, which was to design us and our food, and they have no idea why he would use what you call such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient system? And do all your experts agree that the problem of theodicy, which has been discussed by so-called experts for centuries, has been solved by claiming that good so outweighs evil that there is no problem to discuss?

DAVID: As you have devolved and extrapolated your brilliant cell theory, I've evolved mine patterned on Adler's thesis humans prove God.

dhw: We are not discussing the existence of God, but his possible nature, purpose(s) and methods if he does exist. You have admitted that Adler does not cover the theories bolded above, and since the first theory makes no sense even to you, all you keep doing is DODGING it. Please stop dodging it.

Adler and I believe God's primary purpose was to create humans by evolving them. Method and purpose are now covered, not dodged. Nature is what theologists guess it is. The first bold is your strawman invention of a twisted interpretation of God's form of evolution, which is the only form we have. Adler accepted that form in his discussions. Theodicy has been fully discussed.

DAVID: Evolution happened as a result of God's, unknown to us, decisions. Humans are an amazing, surprising result. Try on that viewpoint. But you can't. You strongly feel humans should not be accepted as exceptional, when we are.

dhw: I have always accepted that we are exceptional, but (a) ALL life is amazing and surprising, and (b) our exceptional gifts do not explain why your God would have deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us if we and our food were his one and only purpose. Stop dodging.

DAVID: Degrading humans by faint praise.

dhw: Our subject is not the exceptional nature of humans but your illogical theories bolded above. STOP DODGING!

Fully covered above.

DAVID: As our terms apply to us, they may not apply to God.

dhw: Do you or do you not believe that your God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and selfless?

Yes, as our terms may define Him.

DAVID: As for evil, it is a necessary byproduct of God's good works. Simply, you can't have one without the other.

dhw: So your all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God, who would only create what he wants to create and who hates evil, had no choice but to create evil, which he wanted to create anyway.

DAVID: The word byproduct means it comes as a secondary event, not desired or wished for. Stop distorting.
[dhw: Argument repeated on the “Feser” thread, so I’ve cut it from there.]

dhw: Your “byproduct” theory is irrelevant. Do you believe that your evil-hating God is all-powerful and all-good, and would only create what he wants to create? If he’s all-powerful, why do you think he is incapable of designing a system which does not produce something he hates? If he only creates what he wants to create, why do you think he wanted to create a system which he knew would produce evil?

Incapable? God created what He could create from available substrates. And byproduct results are relevant.

DAVID: If you really tried to discover theodicy thought, read it. You won't accept my interpretation of it. The answers are all about proportionality.

dhw (taken from T-cells): Your manufactured statistics of “proportionality” are totally irrelevant to the question of how/why an all-good God has produced a system which gives rise to evil, whatever the “percentage”. If he had “no other choice”, how can he possibly be all-powerful?

DAVID: Anyone who creates a universe and life is all-powerful.

dhw: So please answer the two bolded questions.

see above.

dhw: Why don’t you read the Wikipedia article on the subject? There you will find a huge range of “answers” ancient and modern, none of which mention “proportionality”.

DAVID: Do you really trust Wikipedia?

dhw: I have several dictionaries of religion, philosophy, modern thought etc., all of which agree with my definition of theodicy. The problem “has been on the philosophical agenda for at least 2000 years.” (Fontana Dic. of Modern Thought) The Wikipedia article gives a history of this endless and extremely varied discussion. Like all my reference books, it never even mentions “proportionality” as a factor – the reason being painfully obvious: you can’t solve a problem by pretending that the problem doesn’t exist.

We must read different authors. Mine all use proportionality to mitigate the problem.