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

by dhw, Tuesday, December 10, 2024, 11:39 (12 days ago) @ David Turell

Theodicy

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.

dhw: [...] 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 what you call “entertainment” – also a possibility, but one that neither of us would wish for!

DAVID: Neat sidestep. Evil is here for all God's we create, YOUR'S definitely included. My preferred stance is evil is a side effect of all the good God creates. It is an argument from proportionality.

It is YOU who sidestep by arguing that evil is so minor (= proportionality) that we should not bother to consider it! Yes, it’s here. And the question is why your omnipotent, omniscient, perfect God created it! You have completely ignored my alternatives, which include one of your own (now bolded). Part of the ground is covered again in the next exchange:

NEANDERTHAL and speciation

DAVID: That we were close species is obvious in that we could interbreed and produce normal hybrids. Neanderthals were extremely bright dhw will raise the issue of why Neanderthals existed at all if God only wanted sapiens. […]

dhw: 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...)

DAVID: You always return to a humanized God who enjoys watching a purposeless free-for-all, and has to experiment to advance progress.

Not purposeless, if he enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest, as you have proposed yourself. And you yourself have demolished all your “humanizing” objections by agreeing that he may have thought patterns and emotions like ours without becoming a two-legged mammal. Stop flogging that dead horse.

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: Not a zombie. God has His own unknown reasons. He could create just for the sake of creating, but I believe He had us is mind to appear after the Big Bang.

You have just asked me to imagine a God with no reasons at all, as bolded. That would be a zombie. So now you say he does have reasons, and here you even tell us one reason you believe he has, and elsewhere you also provided us with a list of “humanizing” reasons why you think he might have wanted to create us. So you have contradicted yourself as usual – it is NOT a reasonable thought that God simply creates with no reason involved. Please stop tying yourself in knots.