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

by dhw, Friday, August 25, 2023, 12:14 (454 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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?***

DAVID: The absurdity is your constant downplaying the issue of food supply for over eight billion humans some of whom are undernourished.

dhw: There is no possible disagreement here! Humans need food, just like every other life form, and humans are destroying the environment which provides them with that food, which is leading to catastrophe. How does that answer the bolded question *** above? Your dodging is becoming farcical. Please stop it.

DAVID: *** ignores the obvious the current human need for food. God's form of evolution resulting in 0.1% survivors are the current huge bush of life, where everyone is eating everyone else.

All forms of life, including us, need food. No dispute over the obvious. The current bush of life evolved from 0.1% of past life forms, and the other 99.9% had no connection with us or our food, which raises the question***. You admit that you have no idea, as follows:
DAVID: The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation. (dhw's bold)

dhw:Precisely […] I have noted your comment, and will quote it whenever you pretend your theory makes sense!

DAVID: Makes perfect sense as a believer. God knows what He is doing and I trust He chose the right/appropriate method of creation.

You can’t think of a single reason why he would use such an illogical method, which you yourself ridicule as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient, but it “makes perfect sense”! Yes, I’m sure that God, if he exists, knows what he is doing, and I suggest to you that there might be different theistic explanations for the history that do make perfect sense.

DAVID: I view your analysis as lacking common sense. You agree God chose to evolve us and then complain about His method, but only then when I say God had a goal of humans.

dhw: Not “a” goal, but “the” one and only goal, which is why you cannot answer question *** above, and continue to dodge it.

DAVID: Humans are an obvious goal. Ask Adler or read his book as I have.

The fact that if God exists he directly or indirectly created every life form that ever existed means that every life form that ever existed must have had a goal, and it is abundantly clear that since 99.9% had no connection with humans plus food, his one and only goal could not possibly have been to design humans plus food.***

Theodicy

dhw: How do you know that your all-powerful God was incapable of creating a Garden of Eden?

DAVID: He wasn't incapable. He chose differently. Eden without competition was a dead end.

Since when was “competition” synonymous with “evil”? Do you think the world would come to an end if we didn’t have war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease?

dhw: it seems that your only answers [to the question posed by theodicy] are (1) forget about evil, which is only a minor matter, or (2) despite being all-powerful, he had no choice. You also conveniently forget your own belief that your God would have created what he wanted to create. So we have two puzzles now: Why would an all-good God want to create evil, and why would an all-powerful God be powerless to prevent evil?

DAVID: My answer is in a new article posed here about phages and bacteria and all the necessary good they do to support all life on Earth.

Yes, that is your answer No. 1. Forget about evil and focus only on good.