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

by David Turell , Saturday, April 13, 2024, 18:50 (222 days ago) @ dhw

Plantinga

DAVID: No, we are back to the byproducts concept. WE have free will, a good, which allows humans to commit all the atrocities you list. NOT GOD'S fault!!!! Our standards of morality are what God would wish. As usual you extrapolate human evil to a concept it is God's fault.

dhw: I keep pointing out what I see as the implications of YOUR arguments. These are not expressions of any beliefs on my part. Here are the points you miss: 1) You: “If God says it is moral, it is moral.” That means he can set any standard he wishes. 2) You say he told us not to murder or rape. No he didn’t. You think it was Moses who told us. So how do you know our standards of morality are what God would wish? 3) Why would your all-knowing, all-purposeful God, who as first cause created everything out of himself, give us free will (in itself a controversial subject), knowing that we would use it to commit murder and rape and a holocaust? We both reject Plantinga’s reason (to ensure that we love God properly) as being appallingly self-centred....

We know God's moral standards. The free-will challenge is simple: we humans must keep to strict morality. When we fail evil appears. Are you suggesting God should have kept us as puppets? Of course, I can't know God's reason for His creative results, but producing us is His obvious intention with all the manifestations. As for Moses, He offered us his guidelines as a leader, and we should accept those directions. You like to dwell on purely human failures.

DAVID: Despite your argument I want MY free will. It allows me to debate you.

dhw: We are not arguing against free will. We are discussing why a supposedly all-knowing, all-good God would knowingly design humans who will commit evil as well as the bugs and other natural evils for which you actually blame him.). The subject is theodicy, ....

That God did not want a boring Garden of Eden for us, is a reasonable guess. Yes, we are debating free-will as a major source of evil.

Double standards

DAVID: […] What you label as double standards by your rigid rules, I accept as judgement calls of choice.

dhw:[…]. A “judgement call of choice” only involves double standards if it conflicts with the standards you have used to reject any alternatives. [...]

DAVID: Most of what you have shown is a matter of reasonable choices.

dhw: Not if you reject a choice because it violates a standard and then defend your own choice although it violates the same standard (e.g. down with deism because it’s not mainstream, and up with panenthesism, although it’s not mainstream.)

Exactly! I make choices while you pontificate. I have a right to reject deism, and can believe in panentheism. Study and choose with free will.

DAVID: Your problem is picking a choice from reasonable thought re evidence.

dhw: My inability to choose between what I see as two equally balanced arguments has nothing to do with double standards. Stop dodging.

Two sides of an issue can allow choice without invented double standards. I can choose what I like based on reason.

David’s contradictions

dhw: You have yet to offer us a single reason for 1) your illogical theory of evolution, 2) your God’s deliberate allowance of evil both human and natural, and 3) how a belief can be rational although it is entirely dependent on irrational faith and, in your case, begins with your wishes which of course determine what you think “reality presents”.

1) Evolution: humans arrived as a goal. 2) see discussion above. 3) faith from evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. You clearly see design, so where is your designer?

DAVID: That evolution ended by producing us is fact, open to interpretation.

dhw: We can't know if this is the end of evolution, but so far, yes, we are the latest product.

DAVID: Your is, to avoid God, we are not that special.

dhw: Isn't that an example of your wishful thinking?[/i]

Look above for proof of your illogical view of evolution. we are obviously the last product.

dhw: Totally wrong, and the most unethical of all your dodges. […]

DAVID: If I had your 'search' ability, I'd show you your pattern of downgrading humans.

dhw: I have never avoided God. I am an agnostic, not an atheist, and these discussions have all centred on your God’s purpose, method and nature. I have always acknowledged the specialness of our consciousness level, but I also point out the similarities between ourselves and our fellow animals from which we have evolved. I also attack what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism”, and above all – from your point of view – I attack the absurdly illogical theory that we (plus our food) were your God’s one and only goal from the beginning and therefore - you have no idea why - he designed and culled 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with us or our food. None of this in any way downgrades the uniqueness of our intelligence. Please stop erecting these digressive straw men.

Same scurry back to your distorted view of evolution, as described by Raup who took a view from extinctions driving the advance.