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

by David Turell , Tuesday, October 10, 2023, 18:13 (200 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Tuesday, October 10, 2023, 18:39

DAVID: God evolved us knowing He would have a loss of 99.9% of the forms.

dhw: But according to you he deliberately designed 99.9 out of 100 species, knowing that they were unnecessary and he would have to get rid of them (or rely on luck to get rid of them). This method is so messy, cumbersome and inefficient (your words) that even you can’t think of any reason why he would use it – as you acknowledge next:

DAVID: God chose this method for His own reasons. Reasons we do not HAVE to know although you demand them. What sections are left out??

dhw: It is your baseless assumption that he chose this messy, cumbersome and inefficient method for which you cannot find a single reason, so how can you say your combined theories make perfect sense although even you can’t find an explanation?

Not baseless. We are debating about a God-produced evolution. What happened are His Works. The explanation is simple. God chose to evolve the whole current bush of life, which includes us, and our food supply, and we are made/prepared to be dominant.

Theodicy

dhw: You asked me what my God would produce in a system with no evil, and I responded: “a garden of Eden […]

DAVID: An Eden-like existence would be a boring, stagnant form of living. I believe God wanted us challenged. […]

dhw: So now you have your God deliberately creating evil in order to challenge us. I’ve got no objection to that, but if he did so, how does that make him, as the creator of evil, all-good?

dhw: There is no “problem for God” if, being all-powerful, he created the system he wanted to create. The problem is for people like you, who insist that your God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good etc., and then find that the history of life on Earth does not support your theories. 1) Why would an all-powerful God who has only one purpose proceed to design 100 species and then find he must eliminate 99 of them because they are unnecessary for his purpose?

DAVID: God did not 'find' He must lose 99.9%!! He knew that would happen as He evolved us.

dhw: Even worse, then: he deliberately designed them, knowing that they were unnecessary and he would have to get rid of them. Talk about messy, cumbersome and inefficient!

Not unnecessary but required for a culling process which creates advancing evolution.

dhw: 2) How can a first-cause, all-good God conceive of evil and deliberately design a system which he knows will produce evil?

We have God-given free will. To be productive we need free will. Evil is a by-product, not God's.

DAVID: I have offered you the reasonable responses to your question that have been presented by theologians.

dhw: You have offered me three responses now: 1) evil is so minor that we shouldn’t bother to discuss it; 2 your first-cause, all-powerful God did not have the power to prevent evil, because you can’t have good without evil, so he had to invent evil as well as good, and this means he is all-good. 3) He deliberately invented evil in order to challenge us, and this means he is all-good.

DAVID: I am happy to believe in God despite your complaint, because of those reasonable responses.

dhw: I have no objection to your belief in God, and your second and third responses are perfectly reasonable except that they directly contradict the theory that your God is all-powerful and all-good.

See below:

A Christian reply to theodicy:

Jill: there is evil in the world, so it seems clear that God doesn't exist. In fact, I think this shows that the Christian view is a contradiction: God and evil cannot both exist.

dhw: This is a non-starter. The problem of evil does not count against God’s existence but against the concept of God as all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. Most of the article rests on Jill’s basic premise, which Dr Shepherd for some reason seems to accept:

I'm with Shepherd. If we posit a God, His attributes will be our concepts of His personality.

Dr. Shepherd: It does seem right that a Christian must admit that the problem of evil counts as evidence against God's existence even if he doesn't find the evidence persuasive.

dhw: There are good arguments against the existence of God, but evil is not one of them! In between, Jill does say “the being that is the best explanation for the facts above is not necessarily the omnipotent, omni-benevolent God that the problem of evil is directed at.” But this is never developed.

It doesn't have to be developed as it concerns a belief in God.

DAVID: all of this parallels the points I've presented.

dhw: There is no mention of your daft “proportionality” argument,

Yes, in the article: "Jill: Well, I can see how suffering sometimes can make us stronger, but really, I wonder whether the amount and horrific nature of the evil in this world is compatible with a benevolent God or character formation. Just consider any of the recent mind-numbing murders in the news, or the Holocaust.

"Dr. Shepherd: So it comes down to a matter of the amount? I think it is at least possible that no better balance of good and evil is feasible for God among all the possible worlds that contain free creatures. (my bold)