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

by dhw, Wednesday, December 04, 2024, 12:13 (14 hours, 30 minutes ago) @ David Turell

Theodicy

DAVID: I say the bugs are necessary and you say unnecessary. I see them fitting into an ecosystem to play a role. Your proof? Life requires high-speed reactions by proteins free to make errors. It appears to be the only way that works. But, of course, you always know more than God as you criticize Him.

dhw: You still haven't told us why you blame him. What are the evil bugs necessary for? Let’s take an example. In 1918/19 a flu bug killed approximately 50 million people, and infected about a third of the world’s population. Please tell us why you think this bug was necessary.

DAVID: Or why was Covid necessary? I view viruses as necessary for life and occasionally one turns bad. God did not limit their mutation drive for His own reasons. For Covid we learned to vaccinate and it made people survive.

No need to switch to Covid. You are now saying that your God gave viruses the ability to murder millions of people and you don’t know his reasons. But you have said that you blame him, you won’t tell us why you blame him, and instead you complain that I criticize him!

Your God's purposes

dhw: You acknowledge that all my alternative theistic explanations of evolution are logical, as are the possible reasons we both give for his wanting to create life and us. (The free-for-all explanation of evil ties in with these, and I do not regard the proposal that God may not be omniscient as a criticism.) I see absolutely nothing wrong in your God enjoying, being interested, wanting a relationship, wanting to be recognized and worshipped. You have agreed that these are thought patterns and emotions which he and we may have in common, that they are all possible, and that they do not make him a human being. But next moment you reject them all because you say they are “humanizing”.

DAVID: God's "enjoying" or being "interested" are clearly purely entirely human characteristics you constantly apply to your vision of a humanized God.

It is you who first told us you were sure God enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, and I agree that this is a totally feasible reason for his creating life and us. So too are your proposals that he wants us to recognize and worship him. You have said yourself that he must have had a reason, and that he and we probably have thought patterns and emotions in common, and all our proposals are possible. Stop disagreeing with yourself!

“Wound microbiome aids healing”

DAVID: This research shows that many bacteria are working for the good. This should be remembered when the bad bacteria issue is raised in theodicy discussions.

dhw: Another of your dodges. Nobody is disputing the good! That doesn’t explain the bad!

DAVID: I have explained them as side-effects of the good.

So your all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and “benevolent” (your description) God knew he was creating viruses that would murder millions of people, but that didn’t matter? Or he was powerless to stop the carnage? Or he wanted the carnage? I’ll remind you again of what you wrote: “What is fair to blame God for natural disasters, earthquakes, terrible storms, and bugs causing diseases.” So please tell us why you blame him.

What follows has been transferred from “Negative theology” under “Miscellaneous”):

DAVID: The point we can't answer is why God used evolution to create us. Direct creation is much neater.

The point you can’t answer is why he would have designed and then had to cull 99 out of 100 species over a period of 3.8 billion years if his only purpose was us. There is no problem if your God had a different purpose for using evolution, or if we accept the possibility that he is not omniscient.

Selflessness

DAVID: A God who creates without self-interest is perfectly feasible.

dhw: So please once and for all tell us why you think he created life in general and us in particular.[…]

DAVID: As above, the point here is humans appeared unreasonably by natural means. Assuming God in control, we are His favorite goal, to make any sense of our appearance.

All of life appeared “unreasonably”. Suddenly your God’s “one and only goal” has become his “favorite”, but that is not the point here anyway! The question here is WHY he created life and us. You insist that you know why he created life: to create us. But you reject all the feasible reasons listed above for his creating us. Instead, he is now selfless, so none of our reasons can possibly be valid although you agree that they’re all possible! And your God must be some kind of zombie, creating us thinking, feeling beings without having had any of the thought patterns and emotions which as first cause he’s supposed to have invented from nothing. What a wonderful surprise he must have had when we humans invented love, care, benevolence, not to mention enjoyment and interest which are “clearly, purely and entirely human characteristics”. Oh but hold on, your God is omniscient, isn’t he? How the heck could he have known about all these things if they didn’t come from him?