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

by dhw, Saturday, September 02, 2023, 12:56 (238 days ago) @ David Turell

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's bold)

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”.

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

We know that there was a 99.9% loss. Please tell us why Raup thinks your all-powerful, all-knowing God “had to” design 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose.*** If Raup doesn’t tell us why, then please stop quoting him.

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? […]

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

You are making a mockery of this whole discussion, which centres on your agreement that the 99.9% were NOT relevant to the purpose you impose on him***, which is why you “cannot explain why he chose that route”!

DAVID: My God does not need self-enjoyment from His creations. He is selfless. […]
And:
DAVID: […] it is your self-pleasuring God whom you constantly present!

You are certain that he enjoys creating, and to enjoy means to give oneself pleasure. How can he give himself pleasure unless he has a self to give it to?

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

I’m not questioning the role of competition in evolution. I’m questioning the need for such evils as war, murder, rape etc., and if we are to tackle the subject of why/how an all-good God creates evil, it is absurd to pretend that evil is too minor to discuss.
.
dhw: Do they [theists] 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: What theists say about theodicy is what I have presented previously. Evil is always a secondhand result of good necessary processes.

I can’t help wondering how you know they’re all as happy as you are with the knowledge that their God knew in advance that his inventions would result in war, murder, rape, floods, famines and disease, but went ahead and was powerless to prevent all the suffering these evils have caused. Or do they emulate you and pretend that these matters are too minor to take seriously?

dhw: Do you or do you not accept that all these forms of evil have affected millions of people?

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

I am perfectly aware that time passes, and that figures accumulate. You, on the other hand, seem to be totally unaware that even currently, millions of people are victims of current evils. Did you know that approx. 600,000 people die of cancer each year in the USA alone, and approx. 9 million die annually worldwide? Did you know that approximately 6 million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust? Take your head out of the sand.

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.

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

Which part of your theory have I “overtly distorted”? And you admit that you can’t explain why your God “had to” design 99.9% out of 100 irrelevant species! Why is that a “distortion”?