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

by David Turell , Thursday, November 30, 2023, 20:27 (148 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I meld together many authorities’ opinions to create my theology.

dhw: And the result is a composite theory thatyour all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore he wanted or had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food. You cannot think of any reason why he would act in what you call this messy, cumbersome, inefficient way, and so when challenged, you simply try to change the subject, as follows:

DAVID: What God did was create a designed evolutionary system in which complexity of life appeared with each new stage with major gaps. Never Darwinian itty-bitty.

dhw: Thank you for acknowledging that evolution proceeds in stages. Have you now withdrawn your Creationist argument that gaps mean de novo speciation? And what has this got to do with the bolded theory above?

The bolded is an irrational analysis. My analyses: God designs each new species as He did the existing ones. Some have obvious predecessors, others don't. All God's choice of action. I accept them. The presumed imperfections that we see from our human analysis can only show we understand His methods at our level of mentation. So, I fully accept them without trying to answer your baseless questions.

dhw: But as usual, you forget to mention the fact that you “meld” two theories together in such a way that they make no sense even to you,. (See the bolded theory above.)

DAVID: Again the same irrational psychoanalysis of my brain. What I propose is entirely rational to me.

dhw: You have repeatedly admitted that you can’t explain the bolded theory above. If you can’t explain it, how can it be “rational” to you? Please stop dodging!

DAVID: Wrong, wrong, wrong!! My specific response is God chose the method, which I defend. That is the full defense of my views. God's prime purpose was to create us. No explantion needed.

dhw: I know your response is that your nonsensical theory is correct, but you admit that you cannot explain why, if your God’s one and only purpose (which you sometimes try to modify with “prime”, though you reject any other possible purpose) was to design us plus food, he wanted or had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose. Stop dodging!

You describe evolution, admit for this discussion God did it, and then complain about His method. Talk about irrational dodging.

Theodicy

dhw: How did the philosopher explain that all-powerful means with limited powers, or that a first-cause God can deliberately and knowingly create evil out of himself and yet be called all-good?

DAVID: Two weeks ago: Goff's opinions: November 16, 2023, 19:43. It is amazing how other folks think as I do. I am not all alone.

dhw: Dealt with comprehensively in my reply of November 17. He opted for the theory that the designer’s powers were limited, which for anyone except you would mean his God is not all-powerful. He argues that evil is necessary for good to take full effect, but he never tackles the question I’ve asked above, which is the question posed by theodicy. However, I’m not saying you are all alone. No doubt millions of religious people prefer to dodge the problem as you do.

DAVID: Great recognition of the rest of us.

It is a common human trait to put one’s head in the sand if one cannot deal with a problem.

It is not a dodge. It is a grateful acceptance of all of God's good works. The bad is the price which had to be paid.