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

by dhw, Wednesday, April 03, 2024, 09:10 (26 days ago) @ David Turell

Plantinga

DAVID: Once again you have avoided my thought: it is God who has a "morally sufficient reason" to allow evil.

dhw: But you can’t think of any, and you reject Plantinga’s.

DAVID: Wrong!!! To repeat: Plantinga's point was God had His own morally sufficient reason for evil. How can we know it!!! You don't recognize trust in God's wisdom as part of faith.

dhw: You have rejected Plantinga’s theory that God’s “morally sufficient reason” was that God allowed evil because he wanted us to love God of our own free will. And you can’t think of any other morally sufficient reason yourself. What part of my statement is “wrong!!!”? […]

DAVID: I can't make you understand when I present a person like Plantinga I don't swallow him whole. I particularly accept his statement of God having a 'morally sufficient reason' to allow evil as a way to mitigate theodicy issues. NOTHING MORE!

But (a) you have rejected the only morally sufficient reason he offered, and (b) you can’t think of a morally sufficient reason yourself. That was what I said, and you shouted: “Wrong!!!” It’s exactly what you have said!

DAVID (transferred from “quantum analysis of opinions”): My not reasonable answer is I cannot know God's reasons!! Stop distorting!! Plantinga's opinion about God's morally essential reasons is entirely valid.

Plantinga’s theory was an if: God’s allowance of evil would be acceptable IF one could find a morally sufficient reason. He could only find one, and you have now rejected it. You yourself cannot find any reasons to justify your belief that the God you wish for is the real God. An argument which fails to provide a single reason for a belief is what most of us would call “unreasonable”.

I must confess that I’m a little surprised that you reproduced the article without telling us that you rejected P’s theory of self-centred love, which totally contradicts your own theory of God’s selflessness. However, having rejected it, you have now inserted your own opinion: “You don’t recognize trust in God’s wisdom as part of faith”. Put this together with your admission that “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows” and one could hardly imagine a less “reasonable” answer. See the end of this post.

THEODICY

DAVID: Stop concentrating on horror you magnify to justify ignoring God's good works.

The subject of theodicy is the horrors of evil, which you agree exist. Stop concentrating on God’s good works in order to justify ignoring the whole point of the theodicy problem.

Held , wishful thinking and double standards

DAVID: Held meant only one thing to me: soften the OT God image..

dhw: But you disagree with his focus on love, and your own statement leads to the following:

dhw: Humans can change the image of God as they see fit. You exemplify the approach: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” You, Plantinga and Held are birds of a feather, and are just as ignorant of the truth as I am.

DAVID: We like our 'truth' better than yours.

dhw: Yes, you make your God what you wish to make him.

DAVID: Of course we do.

dhw: And so all your theories are figments predetermined by your wishes. See the other evolution thread for your totally absurd claim that your theories are based on “neutrality”! How can they possibly be neutral when they are based on what you wish for?

Not answered.

dhw: Next comes your dismissal of deism and process theology on the grounds that they are not “mainstream”, and your defence of your own theology which you admit is not mainstream. This is a clear example of double standards, and you then accused me of the same fault.

DAVID: Perhaps not the same fault. Not choosing any side, staying always neutral, without a position, there is no fighting with anything. No standards except safe neutrality and just float along.

What nonsense is this? There are countless issues, moral, social, political, environmental etc., on which I have very strong opinions, and I object to whatever insinuations lie behind your reference to “standards”. I am, for instance, vehemently opposed to people having double standards. However, there are certain mysteries of life which NOBODY has been able to solve: e.g. how life began, whether there is a God and if there is, what is his nature/purpose/method, how speciation works, whether we have free will.

DAVID: I am anchored with decisions made looking at proofs beyond a reasonable doubt.

You have a very reasonable case for design (and hence a designer) as opposed to chance. It is your theories about the designer’s purposes, methods and nature that demand blind and unreasonable faith.

DAVID: I guess you are right. I create double standards from your floating, always neutral viewpoint. There is no way I can think as you do.

You have just brazenly told us that we must have faith and trust in your version of the truth. If an atheist told you that given eternal matter and energy and an infinity of possible combinations, you must have faith and trust in the powers of chance to create life, you would laugh in his face. Double standards.