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

by dhw, Monday, December 09, 2024, 15:37 (13 days ago) @ David Turell

Theodicy

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

dhw: The problem of theodicy has nothing whatsoever to do with the proportion of good and evil, or with my personal attitude towards life (which is just as positive as yours). and it is not solved by shutting your eyes to the existence of evil. You have simply confirmed that you are unwilling to think about the problem, just as you shut your eyes to all your contradictions concerning evolution itself and your God’s human-like thought patterns, because you “first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.”

DAVID: In thinking about God, how do you begin? As an unknown personage the starting point is to look at what has been created by Him. That tells us what He wanted to create, but not why.

Agreed.

DAVID: The next step is to assign powers. You invent a minimally powerful God to avoid the theodicy questions my God raises, while your God has created the same evils you decry.

No, the next step is to ask why your God created evil. It is you who try to avoid the theodicy question, as above, on the grounds that there is more good than evil. A possible answer is that he wanted the unpredictability of a free-for-all which has produced evil: he is not omniscient. Another (actually proposed by you) is that he was incapable of devising a world without evil, though he did his best to prevent some of the consequences: he is inefficient (your term) and not omnipotent. Another is that, being omnipotent and omniscient, he is a sadistic, self-centred monster who deliberately created the bad as well as the good because it satisfies his desire for “entertainment” – also a possibility, but one that neither of us would wish for!

NEANDERTHAL and speciation

DAVID: That we were close species is obvious in that we could interbreed and produce normal hybrids. Neanderthals were extremely bright but not to our level of conceptual thought. I think they were a separate species. dhw will raise the issue of why Neanderthals existed at all if God only wanted sapiens. It goes back to the issue of why God evolved us over time instead of direct creation. God had His own unknown reasons.

There is, of course, no problem at all from an atheist’s viewpoint, once they have taken the leap of faith in chance as the originator of the first cells. All species then come and go as conditions trigger adaptation, innovation or extinction. But our discussions concern the problems that arise from a leap of faith in God as the originator. If you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient creator, then it is only reasonable to believe that he had a purpose for creating life and that he was capable of fulfilling that purpose with maximum efficiency. As above, the question why he did not create us directly can be easily answered: it was NOT his one and only purpose to design us! Alternative answers would be that he wanted and deliberately created a free-for-all rather than using his power and knowledge to create a puppet show, or he is not omniscient and omnipotent and enjoys experimenting in order to create new forms (e.g. creatures that can fly, can live in new conditions, can recognize and worship him...)

dhw: You prefer to ridicule your God as messy and inefficient, whereas an experimenting God (either looking for new ideas or pursuing a particular goal) does precisely what he wants to do.

DAVID: Just like a human!!!

Wrong way round. You’ve forgotten that he is supposed to have created us (some say “in his own image”). Yes, we might experiment, enjoy creating, be interested in our creations, and have thought patterns and emotions – just like God!!!

Your God's purposes

dhw: what “selfless” reasons can you offer for his wanting to create life and us?

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

dhw: For years you have (in my view quite rightly) insisted that your God is purposeful, and that his purpose for creating life was to create us. Now you’ve got him creating without any purpose at all. A zombie. And you think that is reasonable.

DAVID: As above: "dhw: I’m afraid the whole purpose of this forum is discussion. Nobody knows the truth, but that shouldn’t stop us from theorizing and testing our theories for feasibility." It is open season testing theories of God. We're testing a God who creates for no purpose. Isn't that possible?

If you think a zombie God is possible, so be it. But the theory is a direct contradiction of everything you have proposed over the last 16 years, and I’ll ask you straight: do YOU think it’s feasible?