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

by dhw, Sunday, September 10, 2023, 11:37 (230 days ago) @ David Turell

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.[/i]

Apparently Raup does not tell us why, and you can’t either.

DAVID: Accusations I have no sensible reasons are not an argument.

Of course they are an argument! If your theory doesn’t make sense even to you, maybe it’s wrong! You went on to accuse me of distorting 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: 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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: As a required part of any evolutionary culling process. Do evolutionary processes work this way or not??? God chose to evolve. Loss must come with that choice.

We only know of one process concerning the evolution of life. One moment you say he “chose” this process, and the next he “had to” use it, which means he had no choice. Why? If the only thing your all-powerful God wanted was us and our food, then he would have been perfectly capable – according to your next comment – of creating us directly:

DAVID: He created the Cambrian organisms directly, but humans were evolved by Him.

So he was able to create species directly, but he had to design 99.9 that were irrelevant, except that he didn’t have to but he chose to and you don’t know why.

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Just as you make a mockery as a theist. God is a personage like no other person. Discussing Him in our language in only suggestive of what and who He might be.

Of course we can only use our language to suggest what he might be – if he exists. And we both know what our language means. There is no “allegory” if you are sure he enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, and is selfless. The only problem is that it’s impossible to imagine any “personage” enjoying something and being interested without having a self.

Evolution and theodicy

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.

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

DAVID: Yes.

Not having read every opinion of every theist, I’m in no position to contradict you, but since nobody knows whether God even exists, and if he does, nobody knows his thoughts, motives or feelings, I’m surprised they all take such a negative view of him.

DAVID: […] Holocaust from evil free-willed Hitler. (A side effect!)

dhw: 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: I accept He did.

Your acceptance does not answer the question how you can reconcile your God’s advance awareness that his invention of free will would result in Hitler & Co slaughtering 6 million Jews, with the theory that he is all-good? If your all-powerful, all-knowing God is the first cause of everything that has ever existed, where did evil come from? (The discussion continues under “microbiome”.)