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

by dhw, Tuesday, July 16, 2024, 10:46 (128 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: From your God's viewpoint He enjoyed watching our development.

dhw: You’re halfway there. Do YOU think he might have enjoyed watching our development? And can you think of any other reason why your God might have sacrificed control over humans?

DAVID: Why should I offer more reasons for your God? My God was all purpose in His works which included free-will humans, not created for His personal requirements.

I asked you why you thought your God gave humans free will. You told me that my answer was that He enjoyed watching our development. But what is your answer??? It is absurd to keep rabbiting on about God being “all purpose” if you are not prepared to tell us what purpose you think he might have had! Do you or don’t you believe he might have enjoyed watching our development?

dhw: You went on to complain that God’s possible enjoyment “is like no other theology in existence”. I responded:

dhw: Re other theologies, you have forgotten that deism proposes a God who sacrifices control, and process theology allows for a learning God.

DAVID: Why fight with deism, which long ago was left behind, or more recently process theology with a few followers.

My point was that there are other theologies that echo some of my proposals, whereas I don’t know of any theology which teaches that God is benevolent but can’t be benevolent, wants us to worship him but doesn’t, probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions like ours but certainly doesn’t have thought patterns and emotions like ours etc.

DAVID: If I am comfortable with my own beliefs, that is all I require. […]

You are a dear friend, and my next remark is in no way a criticism of the kind and well-meaning man I know, but your comment is the very essence of certain prejudices which destroy social values and wreck lives. To illustrate the point, I’m sure Hitler was comfortable with his own beliefs, and that was all he required to justify the extermination of six million Jews.

DAVID: We are dealing with a subject with no factual material at its basis. Just as you have invented your humanized God, I start with a Bible-described God.

dhw: And you finish with a Jekyll and Hyde God unlike any God ever invented. Meanwhile, do you believe your God already knew Beethoven’s 9th symphony when he designed the first cells. Yes or no?

DAVID: I have no idea. God would not have enjoyed watching our development if He knew all of it in advance.

Thank you. I’m glad you have acknowledged (a) that God might have created life because he wanted to enjoy watching its development, and (b) that he could not have achieved this aim if he was omniscient. We are making progress.

dhw: You have a fixed idea about your God’s purpose, method and nature, and the fact that one of you ridicules him as being imperfect and inefficient doesn’t matter, because the other part of your schizophrenic self says he’s perfect. Similarly, your Jekyll says God is benevolent and your Hyde says he can’t be benevolent. I get it now. The two of you together think God is schizoprenic, and that explains everything.

DAVID: No, I have the split approach to one God.

Correct. You think he's benevolent but not benevolent etc., i.e. schizophrenic.

DAVID: I have proven to myself God prefers to evolve all He creates. He evolved the universe from the Big Bang, evolved the Earth to be life-supporting, started Archaea and evolved life from them in steps.

Most of us would agree that the Earth and life evolved. If God exists, then obviously God was responsible for using the method of evolution. That does not in any way explain how he can be perfect but imperfect, benevolent but not benevolent etc. Stop dodging.