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

by dhw, Saturday, September 09, 2023, 08:53 (439 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: [...] To evolve us He had to have a 99.9% loss as Raup analyzed.

dhw: 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: Raup discovered the 'fact'. I taught you that. Raup offered no opinions.

The theory of mass extinctions goes back to the early 19th century, but I don’t know who fixed the figure of 99.9%. That is not what we’re discussing. The question is why your God “had to” design 99.9% of species that were irrelevant to the one and only purpose you have imposed on him. Stop dodging!

DAVID: God has never told me His reasons for using an evolutionary process which causes a 99.9% loss of forms.

Not just using, but “having to use”, or rather having to individually design all 99.9 irrelevant species. And your God hasn’t told you his one and only purpose was to design us and our food. And the two theories put together make no sense even to you.

DAVID: My God does not need self-enjoyment from His creations. He is selfless. […]
(Repeated elsewhere)

dhw: 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?

DAVID: Weird answer. I said God is selfless. I remind you God's personality can only be discussed at the allegorical level.

What is the allegorical meaning of “selfless”? What is the allegorical meaning of “enjoy”? YOU know precisely what YOU mean by these words, but if you’re now claiming you don’t mean enjoy when you say enjoy, then you can’t mean selfless when you say selfless. You make a mockery of language.

Evolution and theodicy
DAVID: Competition, as Darwin stated, helped create evolution. Your usual total overemphasis on various 'evils.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Not to minor to discuss. I'm trying to put evil in perspective against all the good. Your overemphasis ignores that ratio.

The ratio is irrelevant to the question of why/how an all-good God can create evil. Stop dodging.

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

dhw: 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?

DAVID: They take them as seriously as I do in the perspective I've offered.

And are they all as happy as you with the bolded explanation above?

dhw: You […] 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.

DAVID: Thank you. Finally, some real numbers. Holocaust from evil free-willed Hitler. (A side effect!)

I’m surprised you hadn’t realized that “millions” suffer. According to you, your all-knowing God went ahead deliberately creating a system he knew would result in the free-willed Hitler & Co slaughtering 6 million Jews. I’m not arguing against free will. I’m asking why/how an all-good God could knowingly create a system that would lead to such horrific evil.

DAVID: USA cancer deaths were .01% of our population. World cancer death about 2%. Remember, death is inevitable.

Yet again, the theodicy problem is not solved by pretending that the figures don’t matter or by the fact that we all die. Stop dodging. Next, you accused me of an “overt distortion” of your 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. (dhw's bold)

dhw […] 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”?

DAVID: God chose: He didn't have to, which is your false premise that God was 'forced' to lose 99.9% of all organisms. It is simply part of an evolutionary process.

You’ve just said he “had to have a 99.9% loss” – as bolded – and now you say he didn’t have to. No wonder only your God can understand your theories.