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

by David Turell , Monday, November 06, 2023, 19:09 (381 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: What now exists living on Earth is the result of evolution: humans and their food.

dhw: Correct. We and our food have evolved from 0.1% of evolution’s products.

DAVID: Yes.

dhw: So let's forget the theory that 99.9% were direct ancestors, shall we? And while you are disposed to giving a direct answer, let’s see if we can also have a direct confirmation of the fact that the following is your own theory, and it makes no sense to you: that in order to fulfil his one and only purpose (us and our food), your all-powerful God had to specially design and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food.

God created the evolutionary history we see, which makes perfect sense to me. God chose to do it for His own reasons I DO NOT NEED to know. Our direct ancestors were small mouse-sized mammals living with dinosaurs. Everything else now alive had their own lines of ancestors. Those ancient lines are the 99.9% now extinct. All of the non-human living organisms can be or are our current food.

dhw: I agreed with everything you wrote about humans destroying our own sources of food.

DAVID: Your humans plus food is said in derision.

dhw: How can it possibly be derisive? You even use a similar term yourself, as above: “What now exists living on Earth is the result of evolution: humans and their food.” And I agree. I disagree, however, when you say every species that ever lived was specially designed as preparation for us and our food. What is supposed to be "derisive"?

You have neatly backpedaled from the tone of much earlier posts.

Theodicy

dhw: […] theodicy asks how a God who chooses a method which produces evil can possibly be all-good, and I have asked how a first-cause God, who has no choice but to produce a system which produces the evil he hates, can be all-powerful?

DAVID: An all-powerful God made the universe, created life, and had to do it with side effects making evil.

dhw: When discussing your theories of evolution, you wrote “…not had to design and cull!! God is not forced to do anything.” Now your first-cause, all-powerful God “had to” create a system which involved producing evil. I’m not complaining. I merely ask how he can be forced to create out of himself a system which will produce evil (which you say he hates) and yet be considered all-powerful and all good.

DAVID: It is the only system that works.

dhw: Even if that were true (how many unsuccessful systems do you know of?), it still doesn’t explain how the first-cause creator of evil can be all-good. Stop dodging.

I brought up the topic of Theodicy!!

DAVID: The presence of evil is the price you pay. Eden does not, cannot exist.

dhw: I accept the presence/price of evil. But I’m asking you the question asked by theodicy: how can the presence of evil - which you say he hates and which stems from the system your first cause God (if he exists) chose to use in creating life out of himself - fit in with the theory that he is all-powerful and all-good?

DAVID: Constant answer: Evil is a byproduct of good. We accept proportionality.

dhw: Proportionality is irrelevant. No matter what may be the proportion of evil to good, the question is how an all-powerful God who hates evil can produce evil out of himself (first cause) and yet be all-good. Stop dodging.

You are dodging the answer: when I read Theodicy essays to offer an answer, it turns out to be the proportion of evil to good is small. That there can be no evil is not possible, since it is all=a secondhand resulte of God's good works.