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

by dhw, Thursday, August 17, 2023, 09:12 (254 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Past ecosystems were for the past, present ecosystems are for the present.

DAVID: The bold is correct.

dhw: So please stop pretending that this means your God individually created every past ecosystem in order to “support human’s existence”.

DAVID: The current need of the eight-plus billion human population requires all ecosystems for food. Those systems were developed in the past to become the present systems. Pure logic.

Even current ecosystems are disappearing thanks to our mismanagement, but we are still here. And as usual, you skate over the fact that only 1% of past ecosystems evolved into present ecosystems. According to your theory, your God spent 3+ billion years designing 99 out of 100 ecosystems that had no connection with current ecosystems, although his one and only purpose was to design us and the food provided by our current ecosystems. Pure logic? You cannot find a single reason why he would use what you call this "messy, cumbersome, inefficient" method of fulfilling the purpose you impose on him. Stop dodging.

DAVID: My 'mirror' of current theology is based on the 'attributes of God' and the teachings of ID.

dhw: […]You have told us that ID does not even discuss theodicy. Please tell us which religion or list of God’s attributes includes your theory that your all-powerful God was powerless to prevent the diseases caused by his otherwise good bacteria and viruses, and that your all-good, all-knowing God knew in advance that by giving humans free will, he would be producing war, murder, rape etc. but still went ahead with his invention.

DAVID: All of the theodicy essays I found use the Dayenu approach, which I have presented here.

The word “Dayenu” means “it would have been enough” (Wikipedia), and it thanks God for all the nice things he has done for the Jews. I have no idea how any essay on theodicy, which questions how/why an all-good God can have created evil, can confine itself to thanking God for all the nice things he has done for the Jews. Isn’t it time you used your own brain to discuss the issue instead of pretending that other people have solved it by ignoring it? (See
Miscellany Part One for more on this subject.)

dhw: 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”?

DAVID: Anyone who experiments is looking for an answer to his question. Experimentation finds his answer. An experimenting God is clueless just like my human example.

If you look for an answer and find it, you can hardly be called “clueless”! A God who experiments in order to find out the potential of his invention, and succeeds in finding out the potential of his invention, has achieved his purpose! But a God who for unknown reasons has to design 100 species and then”cull” 99 of them in order to achieve his one and only purpose is, according to you, a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer, so you may as well add the word “clueless” to your list of adjectives.