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

by David Turell , Thursday, August 31, 2023, 14:47 (240 days ago) @ dhw

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?

dhw: 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”.

My God designed evolution with the purpose of producing humans and enough ecosystems for their food. I cannot explain why God chose that route, but it fits history as created by God.

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.

dhw: 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.

Of course, there are logical reasons for the loss, a normal culling loss.

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.

My God does not need self-enjoyment from His creations. He is selfless. As all-knowing, He chose to evolve us rather than directly create us.

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.

dhw: 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

dhw: 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.

Your generalized bold above comes from what temporal statistics? Please quote evil in specific time periods accepted studies.

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

dhw; our 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).

No, an overt distortion of my theory.