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

by dhw, Friday, April 26, 2024, 11:01 (10 days ago) @ David Turell

I shall leave out most of my own comments from yesterday, as your replies amply illustrate the dodges and contradictions.

DAVID: I fully believe we are here because God chose to evolve us and all of the full bush of life for our use. My theology is not a wild fantasy, but I think rather mainstream. Most religions would recognize my form of God.

Your comment makes sense on its own, but as usual, you leave out those parts of your “theology” which do not make sense: you claim that we humans and the current bush were your God’s one and only purpose right from the start, and that he also chose to evolve (by which you mean specially design) vast numbers of species which had no connection with us and the current bush of life. If we were his sole purpose right from the start, why would he “messily”, “cumbersomely” and “inefficiently” (your terms) design all those species (approx. 99.9%) which had no connection with us? You can’t think of a single reason. Do most religions recognize such a God?

DAVID: Another view of the statistics of our evolution:
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGxStpNnPZttJdhRHJjjvBQXvKg

DAVID: […] Were those 110 billion lost humans a waste of God's time as seen in dhw's looney view of evolution???

dhw: You have completely ignored the total absurdity of the above attack on me […]

DAVID: Why shouldn't I ignore your absurd distortion of evolution when makes no sense to me at all. All it means to me is that you are claiming God should not have chosen to evolve us.

You have ignored your absurd claim that I say our human ancestors were irrelevant to us and our food! And I do not claim that God should not have chosen to evolve us. See above for the missing parts of your theory.

Double standards

DAVID: You have philosophically distorted double standards to protect your own neutral viewpoint. What is currently available in the whole field of theology is a cafeteria of ideas. Nothing about God is real! I choose to stay with a mainstream form of God accepted by the current monotheistic Western religions. And then pick and choose points of view I prefer. And despite your distain, Adler is my guiding light. Adler used the evolution of humans as his proof of God! A powerful proof, you will ignore.

I dispute your first and last sentences. Your “double standards” have nothing whatsoever to do with my neutral viewpoint. You are simply glossing over the statement which gave rise to this part of our discussion. After your earlier gibe that you had never heard of any theology that supported my alternative explanations of your God’s use of evolution, I told you that it was supported by aspects of process theology and deism. You replied: “Process and deist theologies are not mainstream, and not worth using. My view of God is mine, and just as valid as any other.”
Your view of God as an inefficient designer who messily had to design 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose is no more mainstream than the view that your God learns as he goes along, or God created life and then left it to run its own course. But you say these views are not “worth using” because they are non-mainstream, whereas you clearly think your views are worth using, even though they are not mainstream. One standard for them, but it doesn’t apply to you. That is the meaning of double standards. And I have NEVER ignored the powerful arguments for God’s existence. ALL of these discussions are about your God’s purposes and nature, and not about his existence, which is a different subject.