Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, June 03, 2023, 08:04 (537 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: No one would listen to your distortion of my God.

dhw: Once again, as above: You believe your God is all-powerful and all-knowing. As first cause, he created everything that exists, and you say he created what he wanted to create. He created “evil”. Therefore he wanted to create evil, and knew from the very beginning all the evil that would result from his creations. Now please tell me what I have distorted.

DAVID: No distortion in this limited area. Of course God knew evil would appear.

No distortion. Thank you. So if, as you say, he created what he wanted to create, then he not only knew “evil” would appear, but he wanted to create it. I wonder how many religious folk would accept your version of God as an inefficient designer of evolution, and a deliberate creator of “evil”.

dhw: There is no “correctness” if he began his experiments as a voyage of discovery, learning, inventing new things. The “voyage” would have been what he wanted. When you learn something new, is that synonymous with losing some of your mental ability? (See “Neanderthal experimentation” in “Miscellany PART TWO”.)

DAVID: Again a purely humanized God, with a purpose to enjoy Himself.

dhw: Please tell us what you regard as his purpose for the creation of humans and every other life form that ever existed.

DAVID: He obviously wanted to create a deep-thinking organism with mentation similar to His. He might want our awareness of Him and His works. What is your God's purpose?

Why have you left out “every other life form that ever existed”, including the 99% which had no connection with us or our food? Mentation would presumably cover thought patterns and emotions, and yet the moment I propose thought patterns and emotions such as enjoyment of creation and interest in his creations as a possible God’s possible purpose for creating ALL of life through experimentation or a free-for-all, you moan that I am humanizing him. You also moan that this would entail self-interest. Why would he want us to be aware of him and his works? Might one of his emotions not entail the desire for appreciation? No self-interest?

DAVID: See Wiki on the subject:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_paradox

QUOTE: "The conclusion is that the statement "God can do anything" needs to be qualified. By this logic God cannot do both of two things that are mutually contradictory. C. S. Lewis says that logical contradictions are not a "thing". Rather they are nonsense. […]

dhw: A good description of your non-sense theory:[I gave two examples.] Now please tell me what "mutually contradictory" things you have found in my alternatives.

DAVID: Your whole imaginary God is a contradiction to usual thought about who God is.

Do you really think your inefficient, sadistic version of God represents “usual thought about who God is”? Re mutual contradictions:

DAVID: Of course your not-all-knowing God would not expect evil in free-will humans He created. Part of the contradictions is a God who can create life and thinking humans with free-will and doesn't 'know' in advance the obvious result, evil humans will appear, as simple logical thinking. Your un-knowing God is basically illogical in His thinking.

I can’t follow your logic. You say of course a not all-knowing God would not expect evil, and this somehow contradicts the fact that a not all-knowing God doesn’t know in advance that evil will obviously appear! Do you really think experimenters already know all the possible side effects of their experiments? (See Part Two for examples.)There is no contradiction!