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

by David Turell , Tuesday, November 07, 2023, 19:03 (171 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 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.

dhw: If God exists, we can agree on all of this. The evolutionary history is what we see. That does not mean the evolutionary history is that God’s one and only purpose was us plus our food and therefore he created 99.9 out of 100 species that were not connected with us or our food.

DAVID: Those ancient lines are the 99.9% now extinct.

dhw: Until last week, you had always accepted that 99.9% of species had no connection with us and our food, and you have just agreed with a yes, which I have bolded, that we and our food have descended from 0.1% of evolution’s products.

DAVID: All of the non-human living organisms can be or are our current food.

Agreed. We can eat anything. Regardless of your absurd jump from 0.1% to 99.9% of direct ancestry, you are still mystified by your own theory that your God could have created us plus our food directly but he didn’t, yet you refuse to even consider the possibility that it is your theory that makes no sense. An all-powerful God would create what he wished to create. So why can’t you accept that for whatever reasons, he wished to create (whether directly or indirectly) the vast variety of life forms extant and extinct, as opposed to being forced by the system he invented to create and cull forms he didn't want? (Please don’t make me list the quotes in which you say he “had to do” it that way.)

The 'had to' refers to required culling over millions of years. God wasn't forced to do anything but evolve what exists now. The fallacy in your above answer is that the 0.1% survivors are us and our food which is everything living on Earth today. This was God's wish as you state.

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.

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

dhw: Daft! The discussion has always revolved round your God’s supposed preparations for us and our food, and of course we had to have food. How can that possibly be derisive?

Tone of past responses was my impression of derisive. Go back and read some.

Theodicy

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: I brought up the topic of Theodicy!!

dhw: And now you are dodging all its implications.

Not dodging. You don't like my statements of Theodicy positions I've read.

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.

DAVID: 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 result of God's good works.

dhw: The proportion does not change the reality of such evils as war, murder, rape etc. And since your all-knowing God creates what he wishes to create, and knew in advance that the system he created would lead to war, murder and rape, the question is how one can equate his deliberate creation of that system with the belief that he himself – the first- cause creator of everything – can be all-good. This is not a criticism of the system, which may be Leibniz’s “best of all possible worlds”, but an inquiry into the nature of the being you and he believe knowingly created both the good and the evil out of himself.

Obviously, God knew the secondhand evil would appear, but the benefits of the good works far outweigh the evil that would appear. Leibniz had a correct view. No matter how you criticize God, those of us who believe in Him see Him as all-good based on all we are given.