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

by dhw, Thursday, April 04, 2024, 11:28 (25 days ago) @ David Turell

Plantinga

DAVID: 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:BBB 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”.

DAVID: 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's bold)

You have just confirmed that P’s theory is an “if”. That in itself is totally vacuous if you can’t find a good reason! You might as well say Hitler’s Holocaust would be acceptable if you could find a morally good reason for it! P. could only come up with one theory, which you have left out: that God allowed evil because he wanted us to love him of our own free will. I pointed out that this makes him a self-centred monster, and you subsequently rejected his one and only justification. All you are left with, then, is the argument that God allowed evil (I offer the Holocaust as an example), and he must have had a good reason for doing so, but you can’t think of one. That is a perfect illustration of your basic principle: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” You seem to find this a rational and even laudable defence of your theories!

THEODICY

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

dhw: 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.

Not answered.

Held, wishful thinking and double standards

Held has been dropped, and wishful thinking is dealt with above.

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.

DAVID: 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.

Yet again: I accept the logic of ID. I do not accept your accusation that I have double standards because I can’t solve the mysteries listed above. Not having faith does not mean having double standards.

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.

DAVID: I have my stand you have yours, each different.

That does not exonerate you from having double standards or from accusing me of the same!