Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy (Evolution)

by David Turell , Sunday, July 07, 2024, 17:55 (137 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: An omniscient God must know our meaning, but He may not view it as we do.

dhw: Under “microbes in trees”, you referred to the nasty microbiomes whose presence we must accept, and you commented “A benevolent God did this, fully understanding the consequences.” You did not mean that YOU thought he might not be kind and caring. It was simply another instance of your Jekyll (Mr Nice Guy) telling your Mr Hyde (Mr Nasty Guy) that God is nice, which somehow exonerates him from deliberately and knowingly designing nasty bugs.

Theodicy answer: all the good outweighs the bad side effects.

DAVID: That is the conundrum'. You are arguing at our human level of understanding.

dhw; That is the only level we want to know! Does he or doesn’t he care? Is he or is he not benevolent? Does he or does he not want us to worship him? All in our sense of the words.

The answers may be what we wish. It is all up to God.

DAVID: We have no way of knowing if God views our wishes consistent with His thoughts or even cares (Adler: 50/50).

dhw; Correct. If he exists, we do not and cannot know what he wants or what he is like. There is no “allegory” and the problem is perfectly straightforward until we start to formulate theories. In your case, the theories lead to blatant contradictions, as exemplifed above and below, because you "first choose a form of God [you] wish to believe in. The rest follows."

You have perfectly described the problem: " we do not and cannot know what he wants or what he is like." Thus the allegorical use.

DAVID:We is us. We know my dichotomy.

dhw; Only too well, and I would have thought that the absurd contradictions resulting from your “dichotomy” would make you at least open your mind to the possibility that something might be wrong with your theories, and there might be other explanations of the history of life that do not entail such absurdities. For instance, you were once certain that your God enjoyed creating. Why then is it not possible that at least one purpose behind his creation of the great variety of creatures extant and extinct was the enjoyment of creating them? But no, not for you: he certainly enjoys creating, and "of course he may have human-like attributes", but he is certainly not human in any way and therefore he can’t have any human-like attributes.

Your clear discussion of my two different approaches. You invent humanized God's whose approach to evolution allows less control and more free-for-alls or try experimentation instead of tight controls toward purpose. Strange for an all-powerful, omniscient 'God'. What sort of God do you start with, as I do?