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

by David Turell , Saturday, August 17, 2024, 23:14 (96 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You conflate my critique of His method of evolution as disparaging His personality. He is perfect, using system He feels in perfect.

dhw: Your illogical theory of evolution mocks the inefficiency of an omnipotent and omniscient God who is supposed to be perfect in every way. Your theories concerning your God’s personality (human attributes) and responsibility for evil (theodicy) are so self-contradictory and schizophrenic that they disparage his personality. A benevolent God who is not human in any way cannot be benevolent. A God who might enjoy creating and be interested in his creations, and want to be recognized and worshipped, cannot enjoy, be interested or want anything for himself, because he is selfless.

Being selfless means God does not need anything for self-gratification. He creates for purpose, not for self-considerations. It is only your twisted view that thinks I disparage His person. God choses methods He feels are correct. That is fine with me although direct creation might be better if possible

DAVID: Again, view your misunderstanding in viewing God's 'selflessness'. God does not act to please Himself. He has no need to. In His view Creation is simply purpose.

dhw: “In His view…” How the heck do you know his view? […]

DAVID: He is MY God, so I will imagine Him as I wish.

dhw: Of course you can imagine him to be as schizophrenic as you want him to be. But don’t tell us that you know his view!

DAVID: My expressed opinion that "he enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, and might want us to recognize and worship him", are my wishes for attributes He might have. Remember Adler said God's interest in us is a 50/50 proposition. Selflessness applies. And His purpose was to produce us.

dhw: One minute you agree with Adler, and then the next minute you say your God is not human in any way, and so he can’t possibly enjoy, be interested, want to be worshipped etc. because he is selfless. Sheer confusion.

Not at all. My agreement with Adler is that God is not human in any way. God's interest in us is 50/50.

dhw: I have no idea what gives you the authority to say that your God’s purpose was to produce us. You have no more access to your God’s mind than anyone else, and your theory makes no sense in the light of your belief that your perfect God imperfectly and inefficiently designed 99.9 out of 100 species irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him.

We arrived at the end point of evolution. What more authority do you need? God used evolution as it exists, warts and all.

DAVID: Life can only exist with freely acting molecules! Free to fail. Try and grasp that point. There is no other way God could do it.

dhw: So your all-powerful God knew that he was creating something that would in turn cause evil (not just the molecules, but the bad bacteria and viruses, the natural disasters, and not least us humans), but he was powerless to prevent all this, and somehow it proves that he himself is omnipotent and all-good. NB I am not complaining about life and its goods and bads but am asking the question posed by theodicy: what does this prior knowledge and deliberate creation of evil tell us about God’s nature?

God provided the good. It comes with bad side-effects that cannot be avoided.

dhw: […] my alternatives may or may not be true. But none of them start out from any subjective "wishes" that shape what follows, and none of them are schizophrenically self-contradictory.

(There is no need to repeat our personal histories here.)

DAVID: Yes, the power of the appearance of design returned you from atheism to agnosticism. Happened to me also but I made the other logical step to see design needs a designer. I found one.

dhw: I have no objections to the logic of your conclusion. It is the total confusion of your illogical, contradictory, schizophrenic views on your God’s nature, purpose and methods that I criticize.

You forgot to mention you have no idea how to approach a designer issue.