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

by dhw, Monday, April 08, 2024, 11:24 (227 days ago) @ David Turell

Plantinga

DAVID: […] 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.

DAVID: 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.

See “Theodicy” re bugs. Plantinga thinks God thinks it’s moral to allow human evil (my example is the Holocaust) so long as people believe in him (God) of their own free will, and in principle you agree: “If God says it’s moral, it’s moral.” The Bible tells us not to murder or rape, but it also tells us to kill people who don’t believe in the only God, and to destroy their cities. You regard the Bible as God’s word if you agree with its morality, but it’s not God’s word if you disagree. Another example of your double standards.

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

Faith in what? You found evidence for a designer God. But when asked to give reasons for your other theories, your answer is always God has his reasons – but you can’t think of any. That is why you confess that it’s a matter of irrational faith.

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.

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

Taking a stand is not the problem. Double standards occur when you defend a stand based on an argument which you then contradict in order to reject a different stand, e.g. 1) The Bible is God’s word...but 2) it’s not. 1) You can’t believe a theory if it’s not mainstream...but 2) you can.

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

dhw: […] What concepts are you referring to?

No response..

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

dhw: You have just said: “Welcome to faith which does not need rationality. Faith is enough for us.”

No response. But you can’t see your own contradictions.

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 rejected the only reason Plantinga offered, which turned your God into a self-centred monster […] 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.

DAVID: Thank you.

Our different approaches do not involve double standards on my part. I’ve given you examples of your own, but you can’t find any of mine. Why are you thanking me?

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

Stop dodging! I accept the logic of the design argument. I’m referring to those theories which you defend by saying God has his own reasons, though you can’t think of any and depend on irrational faith.

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. […] Evil is a reality, regardless of proportionality.

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

Some bugs/viruses are good and some are bad. An all-knowing God would know what he was creating. You wrote: “What is fair is to blame God for natural disasters”, which included “bugs causing diseases”. Are you now blaming your all-powerful God for his impotence?