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

by dhw, Thursday, August 31, 2023, 08:04 (448 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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”? You have no answer: ““The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation.”

DAVID: Same weird rant not supported by constant repetition.

No “weird rant”. I repeat your admission that you can’t make any sense of your illogical theory of evolution.

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

dhw: 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!

DAVID: But that is my belief!!! The 99.9% loss is a part of an evolutionary culling process. To cull must mean many are lost, doesn't it?

Of course “culling” means losing. How does that explain why your God deliberately chose to create 99.9% of species irrelevant to his sole purpose? You “do not have an answer”, but you can’t see that at least one of your theories re purpose and design must be a “false premise”.

dhw: 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: And one who luckily stumbled on humans is no God I can recognize.

It would not have been luck if he was experimenting. Again you dodge my point, which is that there are logical theistic explanations of the 99.9% loss.

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. (see above)

dhw: 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?

DAVID: My God follows definite planned purposes.

So does mine. Now please answer my questions.

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.

dhw: 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 what suffering his creations would cause, and I do not accept that the problem of how an all-good God can create evil is solved by minimizing the impact of evil.

DAVID: That is what theists discussing theodicy conclude.

Do they really? Then please tell me their answers to the questions*** you keep ignoring. Do they all agree that the problem of theodicy is solved by pretending that evil is too minor to discuss, that their God’s designs are inefficient, and he is incapable of preventing the evil he has to create even though he doesn’t want to?

DAVID: To have life we must accept the rare side effects, which you view in a cumulative state, while actual rate is .0000000% of activity.

dhw: Your usual attempt to minimize the impact of wars, murder etc. as a solution to the problem of theodicy.

And repeated on the “Miscellany” thread:
DAVID: To have life we must accept the rare side effects, which you view in a cumulative state, while actual rate is .0000000% of activity. Stop distorting real statistics

I have no idea what you’re trying to prove. The so-called “side effects” of bad bugs and bad humans affect millions of people, regardless of your “statistics”. Evil exists, so take your head out of the sand and consider its implications in the context of your all-powerful, all-good God.

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.

I have never stated that your belief in God is irrational. It is your theistic theory of evolution and your head-in-the-sand approach to theodicy that are irrational. Please stop distorting my arguments in your attempts to justify your irrational beliefs.

DAVID: Theodicy never dodged. Your *** is a totally false premise, couched as to be unanswerable.

Your main approach to theodicy is to tell me to ignore evil. My *** is not a premise but a repeat of your illogical theory. See above for your false premise(s).