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

by David Turell , Friday, April 26, 2024, 19:35 (209 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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?

Remember! There are no guidelines to God as an image or personality. Why God 'chose' to evolve us is God's own reasoning. As usual you are blind to real evolution. It can be viewed as God producing us and all the living resources we might need. Everything produced is connected to us because it is there for our use! That some of evolution was messy is simple history. As with anyone, I can make my own theology and don't care if I don't exactly mirror every nuance of different religion's views. I begin by accepting their basic God form as being all-powerful, all-knowing, etc. The rest follows. What gives you the right to complain? At least I believe.

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.

dhw: 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.”

dhw: 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.

Exactly my point There are no established standards for who God is. Adler tells us how to think about God but not what to think. I am not required to accept deism or progress theology. I have the right to reject any theology I don't like. Throwing two theories at me because you have reviewed them proves what! I am aware of them and totally unconvinced. You are aware of all theology and reject it all. That is your prerogative. You are using a double standard against me, aren't you?!