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

by David Turell , Wednesday, April 03, 2024, 16:29 (232 days ago) @ dhw

Plantinga

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.

dhw: 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”.

The real quote from 3/15/24: "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. Plantinga further suggests a possible reason: 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." The reason is God's, not us!!!

dhw: 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.

I take what I choose to take. The bold I inserted makes the point of my specific interest. I will be careful in the future to avoid having you swallow whole articles.

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

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.

Explained in that thread. I started completely neutral as a not-thoughtful agnostic, read books and from review of the science literature saw the need for a designer. Faith came.

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.

dhw: 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.

I referred to the now bolded aspect of your thinking. I know you see the design in life. I've tried to present material here to demonstrate the obviously purposeful irreducible complexity and specificity demand a designer.

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.

dhw: 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.

I have my stand you have yours, each different.