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

by David Turell , Monday, August 28, 2023, 17:50 (451 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your *** ignores the definition of evolution.

dhw: The usual definition of evolution is the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms. How does that answer the question ***?

Logic: assuming God chose to evolve us, 99.9% were shown to be lost as a natural part of the process. What presently survives demonstrates His endpoint purpose.

DAVID: The history of the only process existing shows that it developed a huge bush of life currently culminating in humans, the most complex form of life to be produced. The obvious drive is toward diversity and complexity. It fits perfectly with a God who wished to produce humans and their food.

dhw: So why did he also wish to produce the diversity and complexity of the 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food? See the question*** which you keep dodging.

Total illogicality. The endpoint of diversity is today's food supply.

dhw: Of course it is a result of the process. But the process and purpose you believe in lead to the question *** which you keep dodging.

DAVID: I view *** as an irrational invention.

dhw: *** points out the irrationality of your theory, which you yourself find incomprehensible: “The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation.” Since it makes no sense, maybe he did not choose this purpose or this method.

This whole discussion assumes God created the present reality and evolved us!! Your now bolded makes no sense.

DAVID: Your inventive alternatives are just-so stories about a very human God who thinks as we do.

dhw; Your “humanization” argument has been demolished over and over again by your agreement that we reflect your God, and it is no defence of your theory or of your endless non sequiturs to divert attention away from its irrationality.

My description of your invented God is taken from an analysis of His thoughts, based on His intentions.

Evolution and Theodicy

dhw: Please answer the question***. Meanwhile ,your two answers to the problem of theodicy are:

DAVID: You claim that my beliefs in God are related to your problems with my thoughts about God. Therefore, you must think my belief in God is irrational as you state.

dhw: I have stated no such thing. You are tying yourself in knots. It is your belief in your theories about your God’s purpose, method and responsibility for evil which are irrational – as proven by your inability to answer question *** and your admission that your only answer to the problem of theodicy is to say we should ignore it. Please stop dodging!

Your *** is impossible to answer because it is based on a false premise. 99.9% who disappeared were necessary for the process to proceed. We have only form of evolution of living forms to study.