Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, January 17, 2023, 10:58 (674 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […]If God chose a messy system, it was because He knew it was necessary to use and He had the power to control it. See today's entry about how life evolved the early Earth to what is present today and required for us to exist. God is no bumbler, nor does He relate in any way to your imagined God's.

So your God knew it was necessary to make countless mistakes and conduct countless failed experiments in order to design the 1% of organisms which would lead to us and our food, and that means he was all powerful. (See below on today’s entry.)

DAVID: […] It is clear an all-powerful God does not mean He has to have, or does have, tight control over every molecule or active system. He can design whatever is required by the circumstances.

If circumstances dictate what he designs, and in order to fulfil his purpose he has to make lots of mistakes, how can you say he is all-powerful?

DAVID: In thinking about God, one must decide on a clear view of the form God takes.

dhw: Why “must” we? Nobody can possibly know “clearly” what “form” God takes.

DAVID: Any theistic theory most start with an all-powerful God the Bible presents.

I'm inclined to agree. That is why my three alternatives present an all-powerful God. Once again: I cannot see how a God who depends on luck and makes countless mistakes and conducts countless failed experiments can be regarded as all-powerful.

DAVID: Mine is in full control of what He feels needs control. He has a clear view of what His goals are, and exactly how to achieve them.

dhw: And so he doesn’t need to control the conditions necessary for the fulfilment of his goal, and he knows exactly how to achieve his goal, which is to keep making mistakes and conducting failed experiment after failed experiment, until at last luck comes his way, conditions are right, and his experiment succeeds. An unusual description of full control and exactitude.

DAVID: Exactly!!! Except God can design for any problem environment. Extremophiles show that.

Thank you for confirming the above theory. God’s talent for adapting his designs to whatever conditions chance imposes on him does not fit in with an all-powerful God having only one purpose and knowing exactly how to achieve it. However, it does fit in perfectly with the concept of a God who enjoys creating and has new ideas as he goes along.

Life transformed early Earth

QUOTES: "Earth’s current aeon, the Phanerozoic, began only around 541 million years ago with the Cambrian explosion – a period of time when life rapidly diversified. […] It is only within this aeon that our atmosphere became one that we can actually breathe....From the point of view of our planet, the changes leading to these mass extinctions are relatively minor. However, for lifeforms at the time, such changes shattered their world and very often led to their complete extinction.

Present-day Earth is our life-support system, and we cannot live without it." (David’s bold)

DAVID: this supports my statement that the Earth had to evolve to allow our appearance. So dhw's 'humans plus food' derisive comment is an incomplete assessment of God's work. The evolution of a giant bush of life evolved the Earth to a point that humans could be supported. I've known this all along. I should have presented this view earlier and there would have been less misunderstood discussion.

Do you honestly think I believe humans could exist under conditions in which humans could not exist? Your “new” theory was that your God designed new life forms to cope with new conditions over which he had no control (e.g. forests turning into deserts). Your new “new” theory includes the fact that life forms change as well as depend on conditions (which of course I accept). But until the Cambrian, even the new life forms failed to come up with conditions that WE could breathe. So you’re still stuck with an all-powerful God who can’t produce the necessary conditions without countless failed experiments. I’m not “derisive” about the obvious facts that (a) humans need food, and (b) humans could not exist unless conditions enabled them to exist. I’m derisive about a theory which has an all-powerful God who depends on chance to provide suitable conditions, and who does not have the power to fulfil his sole purpose without countless mistakes and failed experiments.

Meanwhile you continue to dodge a question of the utmost importance to our discussion:
dhw: why do you think a God who makes countless mistakes, conducts countless failed experiments, makes wrong choices and is responsible for a complete mess before at last he is lucky enough to be offered the right conditions and survivors to fulfil his one and only purpose, is less “human” than a God who gets what he wants without making any mistakes at all – as in my three alternative theories?

DAVID: To see my refutation, see today's privileged planet entry. […] The bush of life is much more than food. It also evolved the current Earth we need!!!

The current entry only exacerbates the problems raised by the missing powers of your all-powerful God. Now please answer my question.