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

by David Turell , Monday, August 14, 2023, 18:00 (465 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I can only repeat the comment you are pretending to answer. The issue is not why your God chose to evolve us, but why he chose to individually design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us, although you claim that we were his one and only purpose.

To reach God's purpose (humans), He chose to evolve us, rather than directly create us, the only two options availabe..

DAVID: Your form of God also evolved us by 'experimenting and discovering', describing a new form of a clueless God, which no religion would recognize.

dhw: Please tell me which religion preaches that God is a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer who individually designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. Why do you describe a God who wants to create “novelties”, i.e. life forms which never existed before, and succeeds in doing so, as “clueless”?

Which religion describes your rudderless God who enjoys experimeting?

DAVID: Stop and think: tell us His different evolutionary process, please!

dhw: Stop and read what I write. “He did not necessarily use the same evolutionary process”. In my first two theistic theories, the process is the same as yours, except that in neither case were his designs irrelevant to his purpose, but in my third alternative, he did NOT design all species, and instead gave them the wherewithal to do their own designing.

The bold interests me. How does our God conduct His purposeful evolution to what current endpoint?

dhw: “He chose to evolve us for His special unknown reasons” could hardly be more vague, and you cannot find a single specific reason for your fixed belief in the bolded theory.

DAVID: Any view of God is vague. Evolution exists/existed, God created our reality, so evolution is His choice of creating forms of life. Pure logic.

dhw: Yes, yes, yawn, yawn. If God exists, that is pure logic. What is not pure logic is that he chose to design 99 out of 100 forms of life that were irrelevant to what you say was his one and only purpose: to design us and our food. You cannot find any reasons for this absurd theory, and so you keep dodging it.

Why can't you accept that is how a creative evolution works?

dhw: I wonder what your fellow theologians would make of your theories.

DAVID: Their articles mirror my theology.

dhw: So they ridicule his method of designing his one and only purpose as “messy, cumbersome and inefficient”, and they inform us that their all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God knew perfectly well that he was creating future war, murder, rape, flood, famine, disease etc. etc. but went ahead all the same. I’m surprised that they all embrace such negative views of their God. [...]

DAVID: You know so little of ID, you can't criticize me. Their main point is an eternal mind designed all of evolution and its biochemistry.

dhw: And that is not the point in dispute. You have claimed that they support your absurd theory of evolution and your answer to the problem of theodicy, and now you admit that they don’t, so please stop pretending that ID articles “mirror” your theology.

My 'absurd' theory of evolution is what they believe. God designed evolution for our appearance.