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

by David Turell , Friday, September 01, 2023, 21:20 (447 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 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: But as usual it leaves out the question why an all-knowing, all-powerful God whose one and only purpose was to create humans and our food, would have specially designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with humans and our food.*** 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”.

Your usual rebuttal is nonsensical. To evolve us He had to have a 99.9% loss as Raup analyzed.

[/i]
DAVID: Of course, there are logical reasons for the loss, a normal culling loss.

dhw: How many “normal” evolutions of life on Earth do you know of? Why do you constantly leave out the all-important part of your theory that your God individually designed the 99.9% which had no relevance to his purpose.

I know of only one which experienced a required 99.9% loss, all relevant to His purpose.
.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: If he exists, I have no objection to the final statement, since we did evolve. But see under “early pre-humans” on the "Miscellany" thread. I have no idea how you can possibly know that your first-cause God, who created all of life, does not have any feelings of “self”, and since you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, I have no idea how you can possibly know that he does not enjoy creating and is not interested in his creations, or why you attach “self” to enjoyment. You make it sound as if enjoyment is some sort of masturbation.

Contrarily, it is your self-pleasuring God whom you constantly present!

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? ***

You keep dodging this question

More false premise. Competition, as Darwin stated, helped create evolution. Your usual total overemphasis on various 'evils.

.
DAVID: That is what theists discussing theodicy conclude.

dhw: [i 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?[/i]

Not answered.

What theists say about theodicy is what I have presented previously. Evil is always a secondhand result of good necessary processes.

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.(David’s bold)

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

dhw: This is your silliest ever dodge. Who can possibly compile an accurate list of all the victims of all wars, murders, rapes, floods, famines, diseases etc. since life began? Do you or do you not accept that all these forms of evil have affected millions of people?

Yes over accumulated time, a concept seemingly foreign to you.

dhw: The following exchange illustrates your head-in-the-sand approach:

More microbiome benefits

QUOTE: Millions of children worldwide suffer from allergic disorders, including eczema, asthma, and hay fever[...]...

DAVID: What is the support for your 'millions'??

dhw: The above article which you have offered us – and that relates to only one form of “evil”.

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

dhw: Your main approach to theodicy is to tell me to ignore evil. My *** is not a premise but a repeat of your illogical theory.

DAVID: No, an overt distortion of my theory.

dhw: Your theory is that a) your God’s sole purpose was to design us and our food, and (b) he designed 99.9% of species that had no connection with this purpose, but you have no idea why. Please tell me what I have distorted.

Your interpretation is the distortion. For God to evolve us He had to have a 99.9% loss as Raup analyzed.