Return to David's theory of theodicy;Plantinga & Raup (Evolution)

by David Turell , Monday, April 29, 2024, 16:48 (16 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: We and our food have evolved from 0.1% of evolution’s products.

DAVID: Yes. Addendum: It is the result of God designing evolution to produce humans and a huge diverse bush of life for humans use as they dominate the Earth.

dhw: So why can’t you accept that…he wished to create…the vast variety of life forms extant and extinct, as opposed to being forced by the system he invented to create and cull forms he didn’t want? (Please don’t make me list the quotes in which you say he “had to do” it that way.)

DAVID: The bold is a correct view of God's approach to evolution, not your usual distortion about the 99.9% discarded over time.

dhw: According to you, not even “discarded” but “culled”. (DAVID: The ‘had to’ refers to required culling over millions of years.) And why did he cull them? Because they were not relevant to what you say was his one and only purpose – us and our food. That is why you have ridiculed his method as messy, cumbersome and inefficient. If you now agree that your omniscient and omnipotent God wished to create a vast variety of forms extant and extinct, then quite clearly his one and only motive could not have been to create just the 0.1% which led to our current bush of life.

Yes, evolution is much messier than direct creation, BUT God chose to evolve us! The red quote is your usual twist. Your usual distain for human exceptionalism defines your response.

Double standards

DAVID: I follow theistic thinking as presented by several sources. I have never found the sort of God you describe in any of it.

dhw: I pointed out to you that the sortof God I was describing was to be found in process and deist theologies. You replied:

DAVID: Process and deist theologies are not mainstream, and not worth using. My view of God is mine, and just as valid as as any other.

dhw: In the context of discussions, the term “double standards” refers to the arguments people offer when attacking other people’s beliefs or defending their own. For example, if your reason for rejecting a belief is that it is not mainstream (which is the only reason you gave), but you then go on to defend your own belief, even though it is not mainstream, you are applying double standards. If you had told us that you rejected deism because…(followed by a reason you felt was valid), you would not have been applying double standards. Please stop trying to mangle language.

DAVID: In these brief discussions getting into broad views at depth would require hours of text. I am using broad brushes. You know the God I favor. Remember it. The rest follows! It affects all considerations of each issue. All by pick and choose of what I prefer in theological thought. All by my standards which are mine to freely use.

dhw: And so you continue to ignore the meaning of the term “double standards” as illustrated by what you wrote.

You continue your tortured philosophy of double standards. In theology no standards are established. I can pick and choose whatever I wish for my own reasons as I cobble together a theology of my own. Yes, I have reasons for my choice. Yes, you can call them standards. They allow me to pick and choose as I wish. You choose agnosticism with its safety in neutrality, no choices ever needed.