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

by David Turell , Friday, October 20, 2023, 20:00 (398 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Friday, October 20, 2023, 20:08

DAVID: Your weird question helps explain the way your mind works, requiring absolute facts to make a decision. Juries are told to make life-taking-decisions based on 'information beyond a reasonable doubt'. It works in thinking about a probable God.

dhw: Yet another dodge. We are not discussing your belief in God's existence, but your belief in the absurd theory that your God had only one purpose (us and our food), and therefore specially designed and then had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. It is this combination of theories which you admit makes no sense to you. Stop dodging!

Not nonsensible!!! Stop analyzing my mind/thinking capacity. That is why I analyzed yours. It is blatantly obvious evolution requires a massive loss of forms (Raup: 99.9%)

Theodicy

dhw: There is no overemphasis. Regardless of proportion, evil exists, and the question is how your first-cause God’s production of evil can square with the theory that he is all-good.

DAVID: Our explanations square it to our satisfaction.

dhw: Why have you started using the royal “we”? If you can’t defend the three explanations you have offered, then just say so.

That is because I am quoting the theodicy literature you don't read.>

DAVID: I'm sure God is interested in His own way. But He doesn't create for self-entertainment.

dhw: You were sure that he enjoyed creating. Please stick to “enjoyment”

DAVID: If it is for enjoyment, it is entertaining. Look at the definitions that include pleasure.

dhw: More dodging. Entertainment sounds trivial - akin to being amused. I enjoy a performance of “King Lear”, but I do not find it entertaining. Now please explain why a God who enjoys (your word) and is interested (your word) in his creations can’t possibly have created them because he wanted to create something he would enjoy and be interested in.

Why watch King Lear if not entertaining? God may take an interest in His creations. How do we know God might need enjoyment? HE is in no way human.

DAVID ...but your limited imagination seems to allow only allow for that species of God.

dhw: Unlike you, I do not pretend to know your God. I offer alternative theistic theories (experimentation to create one form, experimentation or free-for-all to discover the potential of his invention) to explain life’s history, and although you acknowledge that all of them logically explain the 99.9% which you can’t explain, you reject them because they don’t conform to your preconceived ideas about your God’s nature.

DAVID: I reject them because they define a namby-pamby God who is not all-knowing in how to evolve His purposes.

dhw: Would you call experimental scientists and inventors namby-pamby? You prefer a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer (your description) who, for totally inexplicable reasons, chooses to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with his one and only purpose.

Your God is namby-pamby. Scientists and inventors are not this subject!!