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

by dhw, Sunday, August 18, 2024, 10:23 (29 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: 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.

I know what selfless means! But YOU proposed that he enjoyed creating, was interested in his creations, might have designed us because he wanted us to recognize and worship him. These proposals of yours indicate self-gratification, and then YOU dismiss them, acknowledging that your approach is “schizophrenic”! And it is YOU who propose that he might be “benevolent” towards us but can’t be benevolent because he is not human in any way. And it is YOU who have imposed a purpose and method on him, which YOU regard as inefficient. You are in no better position than anyone else to tell us what he has chosen (an inefficient method for the purpose of YOUR choosing), or what he feels, especially since your opinions are schizophrenically self-contradictory.

DAVID: 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, etc., as above. Sheer confusion.

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

You have told us that Adler thought it was 50/50 whether God cared for us. If Adler also said God is not human “in any way”, then God can’t possibly care for us, and Adler’s view was as schizophrenic as yours. It doesn’t matter anyway – it is YOUR views we are discussing, not Adler’s.

dhw: […] your theory [of evolution] 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.

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

We have no idea what evolution will produce in the next billion years. But if God exists, I have no doubt that he has used and will use evolution for his own purpose(s) – if he’s still interested! These may include his own enjoyment, his interest in new discoveries, his creation of beings that might appreciate and worship him...You schizophrenically agree and disagree.

DAVID (on “Theodicy”): God provided the good. It comes with bad side-effects that cannot be avoided.

I had already replied to this:

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?

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.

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

Do you really think the model approach is to impose an inefficient combination of purpose and method on your designer, to propose possible human attributes and then argue that the possible attributes are impossible, and to view him as all-powerful and all-good, although he is responsible for evil and/or powerless to stop it?