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

by dhw, Saturday, October 21, 2023, 08:49 (189 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: We are not discussing your belief in God's existence, but your belief in the absurd theory that your God had only one purpose (us and our food), and therefore specially designed and then had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. It is this combination of theories which you admit makes no sense to you. Stop dodging!

DAVID: Not nonsensible!!! Stop analyzing my mind/thinking capacity. That is why I analyzed yours. It is blatantly obvious evolution requires a massive loss of forms (Raup: 99.9%)

If God designed evolution, evolution did not require anything - God required it! An all-powerful God would do what he wanted to do. And according to you, his only purpose was to design us plus food, and so according to you, he required, wanted and specially designed 99.9 out of 100 species that would have no connection with his one and only purpose and would therefore have to be culled. Not only can you find no reason for such a process, but you even call it messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Please tell me what sense you have found in it.

Theodicy

dhw: There is no overemphasis. Regardless of proportion, evil exists, and the question is how your first-cause God’s production of evil can square with the theory that he is all-good.

DAVID: Our explanations square it to our satisfaction.

dhw: Why have you started using the royal “we”? If you can’t defend the three explanations you have offered, then just say so.

DAVID: That is because I am quoting the theodicy literature you don't read.

Since you read all this literature, perhaps you would tell me your fellow thinkers’ explanation of how an all-powerful, all-knowing first-cause God, who is the creator of all things, can be all-good if he deliberately creates a system he knows will produce evil (which had never existed before he created it), although he either has no control over his invention (despite his all-powerfulness) or he wants to provide humans with a challenge and therefore actually wants to create evil.

dhw: Please explain why a God who enjoys (your word) and is interested (your word) in his creations can’t possibly have created them because he wanted to create something he would enjoy and be interested in.

DAVID: God may take an interest in His creations. How do we know God might need enjoyment? HE is in no way human.

We don’t “know” anything – even if he exists. Who talked of “need”? You were certain that he enjoyed creation and was interested in his creations. Why should enjoyment and interest not be among the thought patterns and emotions you accept we might share with him? If he set us a challenge, do you think he would not be interested in our response? Do you consider him incapable of love? You’ve told us he hates evil. Love/hate, lack of control, messy, cumbersome, inefficient – but in no way human?

DAVID ...but your limited imagination seems to allow only allow for that species of God.
And:
DAVID: I reject them [alternative theistic theories] because they define a namby-pamby God who is not all-knowing in how to evolve His purposes.

dhw: Would you call experimental scientists and inventors namby-pamby? […]

DAVID: Your God is namby-pamby. Scientists and inventors are not this subject!!

You have said he’s namby-pamby if he designed all 100 species, or gave them the means to design themselves, as an experiment. Why do you consider experimentation to be “namby-pamby” – especially when it leads to success? You prefer what you call his messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of achieving his goal. Do you regard inefficiency as less namby-pamby than successful experimentation?