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

by dhw, Wednesday, August 30, 2023, 11:51 (241 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: 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.

dhw: 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 […]

DAVID: Again, your illogical distortion: food is missing from your statement!! 'Natural for a process' is not nature!!!
And:
DAVID: 99.9% who disappeared were necessary for the process to proceed.

Here we go again. You claim that your God’s one and only purpose was to create us plus food, but he deliberately designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food, and you don’t know why but it is “natural” and "necessary". How can it be "natural" and why was it “necessary” for your all-powerful, all-knowing God to deliberately design 99.9% of organisms that had no connection with his one and only purpose? You have no answer: ““The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation.”

dhw: 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: Again, a false premise: if God created all of reality, He created evolution with 99.9% loss.

But the fact of a 99.9% loss does not mean (a) that he personally designed every organism, or (b) that his sole purpose was to design us plus food! A God who experimented or created a free-for-all for purposes of enjoyment and discovery could also have “created evolution with 99.9% loss”. Stop dodging!

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

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Given your God's stated intentions, He thinks as if He were human.

So what? Why shouldn’t our enjoyment of and interest in creation and discovery reflect thought patterns of our creator (if he exists)? Why do you insist that what you call his inefficient designs and his deliberate creation of the causes of evil make him more godlike than the above versions?

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? ***

DAVID: Competition provided for the drive in evolution as designed by God. As explained you ignore the evil you vastly over-emphasize is a byproduct of God's good works.

Once more, competition is not synonymous with “evil”. Please answer my question***. I do not accept that war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease are excusable as "byproducts", since your version of God knew full well what suffering his creations would cause, and I do not accept that the answer to the problem of how an all-good God can create evil is solved by minimizing the impact of evil.

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!

No reply. Please stop distorting my arguments in your attempts to justify your irrational beliefs. You do the same again in "Miscellany".