Return to David's theory of theodicy;Plantinga & Held (Evolution)

by David Turell , Sunday, March 31, 2024, 20:12 (29 days ago) @ dhw

Plantinga

dhw: Thank you for rejecting Plantinga’s arguments. I don't know why you presented the article in the first place, since now you want us to ignore it. And I have no idea what you mean by God being in touch with individuals. How often does he talk to you? Next time, please ask him why he allows such evils as the Holocaust, why he used such an inefficient method to produce you, and whether or not he wants you to love him.

What Plantinga taught me was God having a morally sufficient reason for evil, as an explanation of evil.

dhw: So when Plantinga says the moral justification for God allowing evil to happen is that he wants us to love him freely, he would agree that he is totally wrong, and instead we must simply trust in God's goodness.

God is not totally wrong, and yes, we trust Him completely. You are so confused about faith.

DAVID: Once again you have avoided my thought: it is God who has a "morally sufficient reason" to allow evil. God has not given us an explanation, so we accept it in trust of God and His personal reasons. Again, " God does not run the world but is in touch with individuals". Humans create human evils, and God never stops us. God expects us to correct them.

dhw: I was not dealing with YOUR explanation of theodicy but with Plantinga’s, which initially you presented to us with your full support. I’m pleased to see that you now reject it. Your own explanation is that you have no explanation, but we must trust in your interpretation of your God’s thoughts and motives.

I can trust in my thinking!!!

DAVID: I view it this way: God giving us free will sets up a challenge that we must meet, which is not to do evil, or correct it on our own.

dhw: And what in heaven’s name do you think is the purpose of that? Do you think it’s a game for him? Please explain.

Remember Garden of Eden? I expect life to offer interesting challenges, don't you, because those challenges make you grow.

DAVID: The issue of a loving God: Adler puts it at 50/50, which I accept as a reasonable judgement.

dhw: Strange that you never mentioned that when you presented us approvingly with Held’s article, which puts love at the very centre of his theology.

That has no point! I was demonstrating how current Rabbis soften the OT God and I said that at the time!

dhw: Since when was pure Christian theology “secondary stream”? Rabbi Held – another “mainstream” theologian – also devoted his article to God and love.

dhw: No comment from you. Your dismissal of deism and process theology as “secondary stream” rings hollow when your own personal theology rejects mainstream theology (both Christian and Jewish) in respect of God’s love. This is called “double standards”.

DAVID: Just like your interpretations.

dhw: Please tell me which of my “interpretations” denote double standards.

DAVID: You twist my points constantly to create your own defense of Darwin, constantly discussing evolution as a naturally occurring process driven by a survival instinct.

dhw: A process which is perfectly compatible with the existence of God. Where are the “double standards”? The term is perfectly illustrated by the fact that you condemn a theory because it goes against the mainstream, but then approve of your own theory even though it goes against the mainstream. That's what we call "double standards".

Because I choose to pick and choose, while you stanchly choose nothing, that is your real double standard.

dhw: Will you never understand that theodicy deals with the question why an all-good God has created or allowed evil. Everyone who asks that question acknowledges that evil exists. That is not a “black view”!

DAVID: I fully understand theodicy. Your black view is to magnify the proportion of evil problems as a rejection of a benign God creating what He knows is needed for humans to exist. Humans were and are God's primary purpose for creating the universe and starting life. For some reason, known only to God, evil must necessarily be here.

dhw: I do not magnify it. I give you examples of it, because you want us to ignore them. Do you deny that evils such as war, murder, rape, the Holocaust, bugs, natural disasters exist? You kindly gave us Plantinga’s answer, but that turned out to make God into a self-centred monster, so now you revert to trust and to blaming me for pointing out that evil is real!

God is a perverted 'self-centered monster'. No wonder you are as agnostic. God really frightens you. Yes, I know all about all the evils you list.