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

by dhw, Thursday, October 05, 2023, 10:50 (205 days ago) @ David Turell

I have combined this and the “Feser” thread.

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.

DAVID: Adler and I believe God's primary purpose was to create humans by evolving them.

You have specified that the creation of humans plus food was your God’s one and only purpose. If “primary”, what were his other purposes?

DAVID: Method and purpose are now covered, not dodged.

The method you have specified up to now is 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 you have no idea why he would use what you call such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient system.

DAVID: The […] bold is your strawman invention of a twisted interpretation of God's form of evolution, which is the only form we have.

It is YOUR twisted interpretation of your God’s form of evolution, not mine! Please tell us which part of it you now wish to reject.

Theodicy

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

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?

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

If he is the first, all-powerful cause of everything, it’s not a question of “available substrates” but of what substrates he wanted to create! If he was capable of designing the “substrates” necessary for a Garden of Eden, why did he choose not to do so? If he is all-knowing, he knew that his system would produce evil, whether you call it a byproduct or not. Now please answer the bolded questions 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.

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

Then take a look at the Wikipedia article and broaden your horizons. “Mitigation” entails lessening the degree of guilt – it doesn’t solve the problem. So please tell us how your authors (any prominent names you can give us?) answer the two bolded questions above which you are so keen to ignore?

dhw; You have told us that your God “has no self as we view ourselves”. If he thinks, and is interested in our thoughts, how can he do so without having a self, i.e. a personal identity? My question also applies to your belief that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. How can he be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, enjoying, interested in, wanting and even hating this and that, without having a self? Your next comment contradicts your contention that he has no self:

DAVID: There are agreed upon characteristics among the accepted experts in the theological theories.

So if your so-called experts agree that he has particular characteristics, it is clearly absurd for you to say that “he has no self”.

DAVID: Adler tells pagans how to believe. He is a world-renowned philosopher of religion.

dhw: Lots and lots of religious people, including the writers whose works appear in the Bible and all the “authorities” who preside over all the different religions in the world, tell other people how and what to believe. And strange to relate, there are even world-renowned philosophers who tell people not to believe in a God.

DAVID: Agreed.

dhw: So please stop hiding behind Adler as if his opinions are gospel!

DAVID: As a pagan directly addressed by Adler in his book, 'How to Think About God', His instructions represent a theological philosopher's distillation of thoughts by many theists. Certainly, an acceptable teacher for me. Equal to 'The Theology of God's Attributes 101' in college.

Your worship of Adler does not answer any of my questions relating to your illogical theories of evolution and your contradictory views of his nature, as exemplified by your attempts to dodge the problem of theodicy.