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

by dhw, Thursday, April 11, 2024, 09:23 (18 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.

DAVID: 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.

How do you know that God has told us not to murder or rape, if you didn’t get that message from the Bible? Did God tell you so himself? As for Plantinga, God “can” have, is not the same as “we must have”. Plantinga’s point is that evil is morally justified IF God has a morally acceptable reason. He’s offered one which you and I reject, which leaves you and Plantinga with a totally vacuous statement. It’s just like saying the Holocaust is morally justified if Hitler had a morally acceptable reason. If you can’t think of one, then you can’t tell us that evil is justified!

Double standards

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) You can’t believe a theory if it’s not mainstream...but 2) you can.

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

Making judgements does not involve double standards! You simply haven’t understood the meaning of the term. I’ve defined it for you above. Simple example: you have rejected deism because it’s not mainstream. You call yourself a panentheist. Since when was panentheism mainstream? Most people have never even heard of it! Down with non-mainstream + up with non-mainstream = double standards.

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.

DAVID: I am capable of faith, no contradictions for me.

Of course you are capable of faith. And you have just contradicted yourself by telling us that your beliefs are rational, but they depend on faith which does not require rationality.

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

Where are the double standards???

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.

DAVID: Stop blaming me for not knowing Gold's rationales!

I don’t. I blame you for your irrational theories about God’s purpose, methods and nature, for claiming that they are rational but admitting that they are based on irrational faith, and for excusing all their illogicalities and contradictions on the grounds that you can’t know God’s reasons. The fact is that nobody can know your God’s purpose, methods or nature, and your faith in your theories is based purely on your wishful thinking: “I first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.”

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?

DAVID: I believe everything living is here for a purpose.

And so what do you think was the purpose for which your God allowed such human evil as the Holocaust, and deliberately designed such evil as all the natural disasters (including bugs) for which you blame him? And please tell us why you blame him?