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

by David Turell , Friday, December 01, 2023, 16:22 (148 days ago) @ dhw

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

dhw: And the result is a composite theory that your 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 […]

DAVID: The bolded is an irrational analysis.

dhw: It is not an analysis. It is a summary of your theory of evolution.

What is irrational is that we exist now as 0.1%, which includes us and everything else on Earth which is here for our use including food. I don't care why God did it this way. 99.9% is just an historical fact of God's work.

DAVID: My analyses: God designs each new species as He did the existing ones.

dhw: Thank you for confirming your belief that he designs every species, including all those that have no connection with the one and only purpose you allow him.

DAVID: Some have obvious predecessors, others don't. All God's choice of action.

dhw: So we have a mixture of Darwinism and Creationism, but in the context of your bolded theory, this makes no difference since your God designs them all, 99.9% of which have no connection with the purpose you impose on him.

See above for the irrationality.

DAVID: 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: And here you veer off into a vague generalization that has nothing whatsoever to do with the bolded theory above. We’re not talking about imperfections, but the sheer illogicality of an all-powerful God with a single purpose who individually designs and then has to cull 99.9 species out of 100 which have no connection with his purpose. You are not accepting his method. You are accepting your theory about his purpose and his method, which even you regard as messy, cumbersome and inefficient and for which you yourself can find no reason. If you cannot find any reason in your theory, then maybe your theory is wrong.

I don't need God's reasoning for His use of an evolutionary system. The imperfections are really in our weak human reasoning about God's intentions and methods.

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

dhw: No, I complain about your illogical theories that impose a purpose and method on your God which make him seem like a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer (your words).

Amazing, I accept God, warts and all.

Theodicy

DAVID: It is amazing how other folks think as I do. I am not all alone.

dhw: […] 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.

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

DAVID: 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.

dhw: If God exists, I am all in favour of us gratefully accepting his good works, and I have no trouble accepting that the bad is the price which has to be paid. Just like you, I love life (goody, goody) but accept the fact that one day I must die (baddy, baddy). But this does not offer even one syllable to explain how your God can create evil either deliberately, yet be all-good, or reluctantly, yet be all-powerful.

Goff's limits on all-powerful is a reasonable view.