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

by David Turell , Tuesday, August 22, 2023, 15:59 (457 days ago) @ dhw

Evolution
[...]
dhw: The gap is my point by point list of answers to your previous post, drawing attention to the manner in which you try to dodge the question *** above. Your whole approach is epitomized by the following exchange:

DAVID: Only 0.01% of the past is the current present. Agreed.

dhw: Then stop pretending that the whole of evolution is a continuum "totally connected" to your God's one and only purpose, and answer question *** above.

DAVID: Impossible as the series of responses above completely negate your premise. The 0.01% result of evolution existing are the present endpoint of the continuum of evolution, humans plus food.

dhw: By substituting “present endpoint” for “one and only purpose”, you dodge your own basic premise, which is that your God’s one and only purpose in creating life was to design us and our food. Yes, we are the current endpoint, in the sense that we are the last species so far in the process of evolution, but that does not mean that in order to fulfil his one and only purpose, your God deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. Your basic premise makes no sense even to you, which is why you continue to dodge it. And only the 1% (or 0.01%) constitutes a “continuum” of evolution! 1% does not constitute a “total connection”!

Current evolution developed into millions of species, the 0.1% survivors of the process which I see as conducted by God. I see first life as driven toward complexity and novelty. The complexity drive ended in us; the novelty drive ended in the many strange forms life takes. The result is a huge human population requiring the huge bush of life for food. Analyzed from my God point of view, it makes perfect sense. The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation. You try to make sense of the same historical evolution by inventing a strange, humanized God who simply experiments, not knowing the endpoints, hopes to create free-for-alls with unknown endpoints for entertainment. Contrasting forms: my very purposeful God and your playful guy.

Theodicy

DAVID: God never designed evil humans or bugs. All explained previously as secondary events.

dhw: According to you, he designed free-willed bugs and humans, and he knew in advance all the evils they would produce. Your God only does what he wants to do. Therefore, it is only logical to assume that he wanted the evil he knew his creations would produce. You add insult to injury when you dismiss these consequences as “secondary” and urge us to focus only on the good. Theodicy asks how an all-good God can produce evil. You do not solve the problem by pretending that evil is only “secondary”.

It is not a 'pretend secondary' but a real secondary. Humans are born sinless, and some develop into evil. For life to exist biochemicals must float freely. Good bugs become bad if they freely end up in the wrong places. God chose to accept these tradeoffs, because nothing else would/could work.