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

by dhw, Sunday, August 20, 2023, 12:09 (459 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: What is not logical is your theory that (2) his one and only purpose was to design us and our ecosystems/food supply, and therefore he chose to design 99 out of 100 species and ecosystems/food supplies that had no connection with us. You cannot find a single reason why he would use such a “messy, cumbersome and inefficient” (your terms) method to achieve the goal you impose on him. It is illogical, and you know it.

DAVID: How can I find reason why God chose to evolve us? Please answer. You agree He did.

Please stop dodging! The question is not why (if he exists) he chose to evolve us, but why, if his one and only purpose was to evolve (in your language = design) us and our food, did he choose to evolve (= design) 99 out of 100 life forms that had no connection with us?

DAVID: As for connection, evolution is a continuous process and therefore totally connected to its endpoint.

It is a continuous process of comings and goings, in which the vast majority of organisms have led to a dead end. You claim that we are the endpoint, and agree that 99% of life forms had no connection with us or our food. There is therefore a 1% continuous line from the beginning to us and a 99% of lines that did not lead to us. As you know perfectly well, it is the deliberate design of the 99% which you yourself find inexplicable, as well as messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Please stop playing with language!

DAVID: Number one and two are the same process!! We agree God chose to evolve. When I add purpose in number two you fall into a lather.

dhw: Then once and for all, please explain the purpose of designing 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with what you say was his one and only purpose.

DAVID: Repeat: "As for connection, evolution is a continuous process and therefore totally connected to its endpoint."

Repeat: Yes, it is a continuous process of comings and goings. No, it is not totally connected to any endpoint. 99% has no connection with what you call the endpoint!

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: All types of experiments look for answers. All experimenters are clueless as to the answers until they are uncovered.

dhw: “Clueless” is a term of abuse meaning having no knowledge or understanding of something. I would suggest that a God who creates life and experiments with its biochemistry in order to create new forms, or to find a formula for a particular form, or to devise a mechanism that will enable his invention to do its own designing, must know a bit about his subject. And I would also suggest that his success in fulfilling any of these purposes offers a far more positive view of his talents than the messy, cumbersome and inefficient method and single purpose you impose on him.

DAVID: Your experimenting God has no definite endpoint. I'm afraid that is a clueless God to me. A true God is so superior He needs no experimentation.

You are no more qualified to describe a “true” God than I am. So far your “true God” has used a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method to achieve what you claim to have been his one and only purpose, and in doing so he has knowingly and therefore deliberately created all the causes of evil. If God is an eternal, conscious mind, and if we assume that he created life for a purpose, and if – as you have assured us – he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, why do you find it impossible to believe that he might have created life because he wanted to enjoy creating things that would interest him? Experimentation with or without a specific “endpoint” would be one way of doing this. How do you know he did not get what he wanted to get, and if he did, how does that make him "clueless"?