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

by dhw, Tuesday, August 29, 2023, 11:50 (242 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: 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 ***?

No reply.

DAVID: 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.

That is not logic, it is merely a statement that 99.9% were lost. Nature has nothing to do with it since it is your belief that your God deliberately designed those 99.9%. Even if it is true that he designed them all, what presently survives is the current endpoint, which is connected to only 0.1% of what you say he designed. Hence the question ***, which you agree you can’t answer because it makes no sense for your God to have deliberately designed 99.9% of organisms that had no connection with what you insist was his one and only purpose. Stop dodging.

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.

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

According to you, the current endpoint is the product of 0.1% of past diversity, and you have no idea why your God designed the lost 99.9%, which is why you admit: “The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation.”

dhw: Since it makes no sense, maybe he did not choose this purpose or this method.

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

It assumes that your God exists, and if he does, that he created both the past and the present reality, and you have no idea why he would have deliberately designed 99.9% of past realities if his only purpose was to produce 0.1% of what he designed. Maybe you are wrong, and he had a different purpose, or maybe he didn’t individually design every species that ever lived. Stop dodging.

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.

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

I’m afraid I do not believe that you have any more access to your God’s thoughts and intentions than I do, and since your analysis has led you to a theory which does not make sense even to you, I suggest your analysis may be faulty.

Evolution and theodicy

DAVID: Eden without competition was a dead end.

dhw: 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? ***

Please answer the question***.

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!

DAVID: 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.

The first question *** is why, if your God’s only purpose was to produce us plus food, he produced 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food. And now your answer is that you can’t answer because the 99.9% were necessary although you don’t know why they were necessary! Please accept your own admission that your theory makes no sense even to you.

The second question ***, which again you have ignored, concerns theodicy, and your new theory that life could not go on (Eden would be a dead end) without the evils of war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease...

No answer from you.