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

by David Turell , Saturday, December 07, 2024, 20:17 (15 days ago) @ dhw

Theodicy

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.

dhw: 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.

I prefer to look at the magnitude of all the good in the world. The comparison is your insistence on doom and gloom.

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.

dhw: 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.

Again your doom and gloom approach to life. Would you prefer to not ever having lived?

Your God's purposes

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'.

dhw: 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!

This is a discussion of possibilities of a relationship with God. He is not human in any way so our proposals MUST accept that in our discussion. We should not humanize God in any way.

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.

dhw: 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?

Just imagine that God simply creates, no reason involved, is a reasonable thought.

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

dhw: 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.

By 'real' I mean any process of evolution which approaches a goal in stepwise stages. Considering who God is, you prefer a powerless God who enjoys free-for-alls for entertainment, and experimenting to find answers in evolution.