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

by David Turell , Wednesday, April 10, 2024, 18:38 (19 days ago) @ dhw

Plantinga

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.

dhw: 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.

Remember, I didn't use the Bible to develop my theological thinking. You are fighting with Plantinga's total view. I've simply accepted his point that God can have a morally acceptable reason for evil. Just like my reasoning that we must have good bugs that might go bad.

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.

dhw: 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.

That is your distorted example of a willingness to make judgements based on evidence.

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.”

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

I am capable of faith, n o conradictions for 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 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?

From above: "I don’t share your irrational faith." Of course you can't.

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.

dhw: 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.

Stop blaming me for not knowing Gold's rationales!

THEODICY

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

dhw: 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?

I believe everything living is here for a purpose.