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

by dhw, Saturday, December 07, 2024, 11:46 (15 days ago) @ David Turell

Theodicy

dhw: I asked you to take your head out of the sand and see the wars, civil wars, natural catastrophes and rampant diseases all around you, and you replied: “It’s out and sees a pleasant world, compared with your doom and gloom approach.” Not an approach. These evils exist, but you’d rather not acknowledge them as evils allowed by or even directly created by your God.

DAVID: How many civil wars in how many countries? A tiny portion of the stable world. And where are all the rampant diseases with Covid under control? Yes, gloom and doom. Yes, they exist, but not in your magnified state.

You really don’t get it, do you? We are not discussing comparisons. 50 million deaths from one of your omnipotent, omniscient God’s viruses are enough to make us ask why God created evil. The question is not answered by counting the number of people who didn’t die.

DAVID (earlier): I don’t know if God could have stopped it since the virus mutates on its own.
DAVID (later): It is a side effect of mutation powers He granted the virus.

So your all-knowing God knowingly granted the virus the power to kill 50 million people, and you don’t know if your all-powerful God had the power to stop it, but lots of people didn’t die, so let’s not think about theodicy. Head in the sand twice over.

Your God's purposes

DAVID: What I propose for God are our human wishes for a relationship, not His wishes. We can't know those in this one-sided discussion.

dhw: You insist that you do know he created life because he wished to create us humans. When asked why you thought he wished to create us humans, you provided your thoughts about HIS potential wishes: they included enjoyment, interest, and a desire for a relationship, recognition and worship. And you have consistently agreed that all are possible and do NOT turn God into a human, but in the same post you argue that he cannot have had these wishes because they would turn him into a human.

DAVID: That is why they are stated as 'potential or possible'.

But you reject them all. You write: “God ‘enjoying’ or being ‘interested’ are clearly purely entirely human characteristics you constantly apply to your vision of a humanized God”. “You constantly picture Him with human desires, as if He is one of us.” All of the above were YOUR proposals, which I find perfectly feasible, and which you regard as possible, but which you reject as “humanizing”. Stop disagreeing with yourself!

dhw: So now your omniscient, omnipotent God can’t possibly enjoy creating, be interested in his creations, be caring (even your Adler gives him a 50/50 chance) or loving or “benevolent” (another of your characterisations of him), want to be recognized and worshipped. He is an omniscient zombie who knows how to create thought patterns and emotions totally unknown to himself.

DAVID: Don't be ridiculous, as omniscient He knows all before any creation. He is no zombie but creates without expecting any self gains. I can understand your description from the background of your imagined humanized God.

For the umpteenth time, all these “humanizing” characteristics were YOUR proposed reasons why your God created life and us. If he had none of them, what “selfless” reasons can you offer for his wanting to create life and us?

DAVID: Will you never accept the idea that all of evolution is for the purpose of human support? The 90% non-human is for human support. We use all the resources on the planet. Please answer the point.

dhw: I have always accepted that we humans use all the resources available to us in the present world. Will you never accept that “all of evolution” includes the millions of extinct species over the last 3.8 billion years that had no connection with us, but which you insist your God designed and then had to cull because they had no connection with us and you believe we were his one and only purpose?

DAVID: Real evolution requires culling to achieve successful survivors, doesn't it?

I don’t know what you mean by “real” evolution. The reality – if we accept Raup’s figures – is that 99.9% went extinct and 0.1% survived. One day there will be 100% extinct. Extinctions are a fact of life’s history. If there is a God, then we try to understand why he created life and why he created or allowed extinctions. Your theory is that it was all a messy, inefficient way of designing us. It makes no sense for an omnipotent, omniscient God to be messy and inefficient, but you reject any other theistic explanation, even if it makes perfect sense.