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

by dhw, Monday, March 18, 2024, 08:59 (40 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Plantinga's key point: "Plantinga explains that a morally perfect, omnipotent being can allow evil to exist if, in his perfect omniscience he has a morally sufficient reason for doing so — that is, a reason that would justify permitting the evil. bbbPlantinga further suggests a possible reasonbbb (dhw’s bold): that God deemed human free will to be something of great value, even though the existence of free will makes possible the existence of evil. Thus, there is a third option: God might allow evil for good reasons." Which comes back to this implication: God has reasons we cannot understand but must accept. Yes, both Plantinga and I accept the same God as a starting point.

dhw: Your answer is one big dodge. Plantinga’s starting point is the unproven theory that God is omnipotent, omniscient and all-good (“morally perfect”), and apparently loves us humans, although the Bible has him slaughtering all humans (babes included) except for one family (the Flood) and giving orders for the slaughter of all unbelievers and the destruction of their cities (Deuteronomy). And then Plantinga gives us one reason and one reason only for evil: God gave us free will because “even though free will entails the possibility that they might choose evil; relationships grounded in real love are not possible unless both parties enter into them willingly.”. And you agree! He wants us to love him (and elsewhere you have him wanting us to recognize and worship him). But you think your God is selfless!!! And who cares if the evil that God deliberately "allows" causes untold misery to millions of humans, whether they love God or not? Obviously your all-good God doesn’t, or he would never have created the concept in the first place. This is what you are proud to accept!

DAVID: You have fallen into the same Old Testament trap as you apply to Plantinga now bolded above. We have agreed the Bible, written by humans expresses human wishes for what they want God to be.

I am simply pointing out that if Plantinga wants to use the Bible as a reference book to prove how much God loves us, he cannot ignore other sections of the Bible which illustrate God’s devastating vengefulness against those who do not love or recognize him. And astonishingly, you yourself seem to have forgotten your own bald confession: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.”

DAVID: Both you and I have our own impressions, as equally cogent as anyone else. Granted neither of us like the other's.

And now you completely ignore the truly appalling implications of Plantinga’s one and only explanation of evil, which I have bolded for you and which you approve of. How can you possibly support this egocentric, callous version of your God and continue to view him as selfless and loving?