Return to David's theory of evolution, theodicy and purposes (Evolution)

by David Turell , Monday, November 25, 2024, 18:19 (1 day, 11 hours, 21 min. ago) @ dhw

God’s possible reasons for creating life and us

DAVID: No, I am not mainstream.

dhw: You criticized my alternative theories on the grounds that they are “like no other God I’ve ever read about”. Yes, you have. But when I pointed out that they had much in common with deism and process theology, you dismissed these because they were not mainstream. However, your own theories are not mainstream. Do you now understand why I accused you of double standards, to accompany your schizophrenic contradictions?

God does not come with labels. We each apply our own. I dismiss yours.

DAVID: Unlike your unchanging position I have presented my evolving present thoughts which of course will contrast with past thoughts.

dhw: I present various alternative theories, and remain open-minded, but critical of theories which make no sense even to the theorist (i.e. you). There is no “of course” about past views changing to present, because you continue to promote both at the same time! You agree that all your suggested reasons for your God’s creation of life and us (enjoyment, interest, escape from boredom, desire for a relationship, recognition, worship) are possible, but you also tell us God is not human in any way and is selfless, which means they are all impossible.

God can show human attributes while being entirely unhuman. Your thinking is too rigid.

DAVID (transferred from “Theoretical origin of life”): If He is not human in any way He still may exhibit human attributes as secondary to His personage.

dhw: More obfuscation! Attributes are the individual traits that define a “personage”! Is it “secondary” to know whether he is murderously self-centred (OT version) or benevolent and loving (as you would wish)? Your list of possible human-like thought patterns and emotions does not make him into a two-legged mammal!

Perhaps you understand God can be anything on desires.

Theodicy

DAVID: You tailor your God to fit your disposition for process and reduce Him to not omniscient. Fine for you, but not for me.

dhw: I offer different alternative theories, not beliefs, and they are “tailored” to fit the facts we know, not to fit any personal wishes. Whereas you admit that your own starting point is what you wish. Maybe God is not all-good, not omniscient, not all-powerful. You make him an inefficient designer who does not have the power to create an Eden (a world without evil), and who tries (often in vain) to provide cures for some of his evils but lacks the knowledge to do so. Neither omnipotent nor omniscient. All fine for you?

DAVID: Overdrawn negatives for my God who created a universe, invented life and evolved us. No small achievements if not perfect.

dhw: The problem of theodicy has nothing whatsoever to do with your God’s achievements (if he exists), but is concerned solely with the question of how or why an all-good God has created evil. One of your answers is to ignore the problem, and another is to ignore my answers when you object to my alternative theories (as above). But your last comment suggests that you yourself are beginning to have reservations about your preconceptions. Your God is “not perfect”. Please tell us more.

Obviously, evil persons and bad bugs are side effects of God's good works.