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

by dhw, Thursday, November 09, 2023, 11:53 (378 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] 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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: I do not need to know God's reasoning.

It is not a fact that we and our food were your God’s one and only purpose, and it is not a fact that your God individually designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food. (The only fact is that 99.9 out of 100 species have become extinct and did not lead to us or our food.) These are your theories, and you ought to know your own reasoning for coming up with your theories.

Humans plus food

dhw: How can it [the term “humans plus food”] possibly be derisive? […] Please find one quote in which you think I’ve used the words derisively.

DAVID: Here from 2021
" DAVID: My bold enhances the point that this is an answer to dhw's complaint that all God wanted was 'humans and food'. The complaint is thoughtless, and points out how incompletely dhw has thought through the issue. Every tiny organism is required to sustain the Earth in balance for huge human population.”

This is you speaking, not me, and my complaint is your two theories, as described above after “What fallacy”? You have constantly said that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food. How is this term “derisive”? The next quote clearly illustrates why I “complain”:
"dhw: The bold and the whole of your comment reveal either confusion or distortion. The bold emphasizes the importance of small things for the planet. Humans are just one species on the planet. Different forms of life are required for different ecosystems, and throughout history, big and small forms have lived and died – all required to sustain the ecosystems that existed at the time. I’m sorry, but I find it absurd to argue that every extinct ecosystem and every extinct big or small thing for the last 3.X billion years was required “for huge human population”!"

Beautifully put! Where is the derisive use of “humans plus food”? This is exactly the same argument that you continue to dodge year after year, as in your next remark:

DAVID: We can eat anything on Earth. Purposely arranged by God.

You mean we can eat anything currently on Earth. How does that explain why your God purposely designed and had to cull the millions of species that had no connection with what you say was his one and only purpose (us humans and our food)? Stop dodging!

Theodicy

dhw: 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!

DAVID: I've read all your complaining answers. I'm with Leibniz. We have to live with what we have.
Of course we do. How does that answer the question posed by theodicy?

DAVID: God does not produce firsthand evil! God can't control freewill humans or free-willed bacteria and viruses. In living biochemistry there are many editing systems God designed.

Your all-knowing God produced the system which he knew would lead to war, murder, rape etc. Your all-powerful God only creates what he wants to create, so he must have wanted to create freewill humans and bacteria and viruses and NOT wanted to control them. No problem. Leibniz may be right. But none of this answers the question posed by theodicy: how can the first-cause creator of all things have deliberately and knowingly created evil and yet be all-good?