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

by dhw, Sunday, October 22, 2023, 09:02 (396 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 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%)

dhw: 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.

DAVID: What God does not have to make sense! If He did it, it is the correct thing He wished to do. As a believer I simply accept it. You never understand this point of view.

I agree with you that an all-powerful God would do what he wished to do. If he wished to design 99.9 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose, he would do so. If he wished to create a free-for-all, or to experiment to find out the potential of his invention, he would do so. If he wished to experiment in order to find out the best way to create a particular form of life, he would do so. What you “simply accept” is your theory that he wished to use a messy, inefficient method to achieve the purpose you impose on him with your theory, although you can’t understand why. The three alternatives have him achieving his purpose in a completely logical and efficient manner. But “you never understand this point of view.”

Theodicy

[…] 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.

DAVID: They really don't. Proportionality is what they point out.

So you’ll have to think for yourself. I’ll look forward to your response to the above.

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

dhw: 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: We know what WE believe. Stay outside. It's OK. We can discuss His personality realizing you are correct; we don't really know.

No, we don’t, and so we discuss the possibilities and the feasibleness of our theories. I don’t understand your “Stay outside”. How can we have any discussions if we stay outside? The following exchange is a simple example:

DAVID: Your God is namby-pamby. […]

dhw: 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?

DAVID: Namby-pamby refers to a weak God who gives up direct control and HOPES the process achieves His wished for goal.

In one of your theodicy theories, your God has no control over the evil “by-products” of the system he has invented. How weak and namby-pamby is that? In my free-for-all theory, he does not want control – his purpose is to see what happens if he leaves organisms to design themselves. Why is that weak and namby-pamby? In two of my theories, he doesn’t “hope” he’ll find out the potential of his invention. He knows that what he is doing will reveal the potential. Weak and namby-pamby? Compared to a God who, in one of your own theories, has to create a system which will produce something he hates (evil) but which he is powerless to prevent?