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

by dhw, Wednesday, November 08, 2023, 12:02 (171 days ago) @ David Turell

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

DAVID: Yes.

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. […]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.)

DAVID: The 'had to' refers to required culling over millions of years.

So why would your all-powerful God have created and had to cull millions of species not connected with us and our food when, according to you, all he wanted to create was us and our food? It doesn't make sense!

DAVID: 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.

What fallacy? Your theories are 1) that his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, but 2) he specially designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 of his designs, which had no connection with us and our food. You have no idea why he would choose such a method to achieve such a purpose, and so maybe one or both of your theories are wrong.

Humans plus food

dhw: How can it [the term “humans plus food”] 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: Tone of past responses was my impression of derisive. Go back and read some.

This is simply daft. Please find one quote in which you think I’ve used the words derisively.

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.

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

And I have explained why, as below:

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

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.

DAVID: 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.

You simply ignore what I write, so I will repeat it. 1) The evil exists, regardless of “proportion”. Theodicy asks how an all-good God can produce evil, not how much good God has produced in proportion to evil. 2) It may well be that Leibniz’s view is correct. But this does not tell us anything about God’s own nature. You, just like many religious people, tend to label God’s attributes: all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good etc. Theodicy asks how the first-cause creator of all things can produce evil out of himself and yet be all-good? The fact that you see him as all-good is not an answer to the question!