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

by dhw, Wednesday, August 23, 2023, 13:50 (248 days ago) @ David Turell

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. [Now below, and still never answered.]

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”!

DAVID: 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.

What do you mean by “current” evolution? Evolution developed into millions of species extinct and extant, and you claim that they were all specifically designed by God for the purpose of designing us and our food. Why do you think he would deliberately have designed 99% of “novelties” (strange forms) that had no connection with us if his only purpose was to design the 1% that would lead to us?*** Your attempts to dodge the question are becoming increasingly absurd.

DAVID: The result is a huge human population requiring the huge bush of life for food.

Another result is that the irrelevant 99 out of 100 species have disappeared, and you have no idea why he would have designed them in the first place if his only purpose was to create us and our food.***

DAVID: 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. (dhw's bold)

Precisely. Your theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, and his method of designing 99 out of 100 “novelties” which had no connection with us and our food***, makes no sense to you. But you keep repeating it and then ignoring it in your endless attempts to dodge the fact that it makes NO sense.I have noted your comment, and will quote it whenever you pretend your theory makes sense!

DAVID: 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.

You can trivialize my own theories as much as you like with your choice of vocabulary, but that does not alter the fact that your own theory makes no sense to you because – unlike all of my alternatives - there is no way it can be made to fit in with the history of evolution. Stop dodging!

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”.

DAVID: 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.

How do you know that your all-powerful God was incapable of creating a Garden of Eden? Your all-knowing God knew perfectly well that some humans and some bugs would produce evil, because he made them that way. Even if we accept your strange theory that bugs must be free to kill us in order for them to be free to keep us alive, why must humans be free to kill one another? (NB I have no objection to the theory of free will. I only object to your answers to the problem of theodicy, i.e. why and how an all-good God can create evil: 1) evil is too minor to discuss, or 2) your all-powerful God was powerless to prevent it even though he knew it would happen.)