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

by David Turell , Sunday, April 07, 2024, 14:26 (228 days ago) @ dhw

Plantinga

DAVID: It is well for you to state vacuous ifs can justify evil, when morally they cannot. You don't seem to understand that at God's level of reasoning, if God says it is moral, it is moral.

dhw: If God says that what we think is evil is actually good, and the Holocaust, murder and rape are just as moral as being kind and helpful and good to one another, then of course we can’t argue. Let’s just hope he doesn’t twist language and concepts the way you do.

The ethics and morals at the human level are quite clear. God has told us not to murder or rape. But I can see circumstances I've mentioned before: good bugs in bad places. God needed to use those bugs for good purpose (our gut biome) but very bad outside the gut.

dhw: 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!

DAVID: Double standard. I must be wrong if I can't think of God's reasons as you unreasonably demand.

dhw: I have not said you are wrong! I am saying that you have no reason for your faith beyond your wish that God should be perfect!

Full misunderstanding of my thinking! I found enough evidence for faith before I accepted faith.

dhw: I apply the same “standard” to the atheistic faith in chance as the creator of life’s complexities. Your faith and theirs are equally irrational[/i].

Pure opinion.

DAVID: That you reject both sides is what creates your double standards.

dhw: 1)I don’t reject both sides. One of them must be closer to the truth than the other.
2)I apply the same standards to both: I don’t know enough to make a decision, and that is why I neither believe nor disbelieve.

Standard is same as 'taking a stand'. Circumstantial evidence 'beyond a reasonable' doubt allows a choice, a conviction. Some of us take single stands.

DAVID: You combine two different concepts to make a so-called double standard.

dhw: You can’t apply double standards unless you claim that one thing is right and the other is wrong, although both are based on the same standards. What concepts are you referring to?

See above.

DAVID: What is irrational to you is not to me.

DAVID: Because I offer you Plantinga's perfect reason, I am able to 'think of' exactly what you wish for and then you deny me. That is a double standard. Only what you think is OK!

dhw: You have quite rightly rejected the only reason Plantinga offered, which turned your God into a self-centred monster who allowed evil because all he wanted was for us to love him of our own free will! You wish for an all-good God but neither you nor P. can think of what you would consider a moral justification for the evil God allows. (I’m sure nobody would wish for a God whose definition of “moral” allows for murder and rape!) But the difference between us is that you have irrational faith that your wish is the reality (= wishful thinking), and I don’t share your irrational faith. No double standards.

Thank you.

DAVID: Calling faith 'wishful thinking' is a dirty poke.

dhw: It is what you have explicitly admitted! Listen to yourself: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” And:

dhw: You make your God what you wish to make him.

DAVID: Of course we do.

dhw: So your faith is based on the God you wish to believe in!!! That = wishful thinking.

DAVID: Only in your mind. Faith and wishes go together.

dhw: And faith that your wishes are the truth = wishful thinking!

Starting from evidence beyond a reasonable doubt! Evidence Apparently you can't accept.

THEODICY

DAVID: You won't accept proportionality as a reasonable view.

dhw: So if someone lives to be 100, did nothing but good for 99 years and only spent one year murdering and raping people, they can apply for sainthood.

DAVID: Not a likely possibility. Irrational example.

dhw: I’m illustrating the absurdity of your argument that we needn’t ask why an all-good God creates or allows evil because he has created more good than evil. Evil is a reality, regardless of proportionality.

Fully understood. Again, gut biome is pure good, unless bugs escape. Pure, good bugs don't exist, so perhaps God could not make them.