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

by dhw, Wednesday, November 01, 2023, 11:42 (178 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Evolution means a 99.9% loss, as shown by Raup. God's success: humans and food supply are here.

dhw: The only evolution of life that we know entailed a 99.9% loss. How on earth does that come to mean that your all-powerful God, “who directly creates what he wishes directly” and whose only wish was to design us plus food, therefore had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food?

DAVID: Not "had to design and cull"!! God is not forced to do anything. God chose His method.

You have used “had to” in the past, on the grounds that for some unknown reason evolution requires a 99.9% loss. But by all means withdraw that argument and stick to your belief that your God, who “directly creates what he wishes directly”, wished to create 99.9 out of 100 species what had no connection with his one and only purpose. Then you can repeat: “We do not know why God chose to evolve us. dhw is correct. Why not direct creation?”

DAVID: God's own analysis! Revealed by Raup.

dhw: Does Raup also tell us when and where God revealed to him that his only purpose was us and therefore he had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with us?

DAVID: More nonsense. Raup did not discuss purposes. Raup studied history, not God.

dhw: Then what is this nonsense about your theory being God’s own analysis revealed by Raup? The 99.9% loss is history, the rest is your wacky interpretation of history. […]

DAVID: Raup's analysis of God's evolution revealed 99.9% were ancestors of the 0.1% alive today. What is your problem?

This is a complete volte face, regardless of Raup. For I don’t know how many years, you have accepted that 99.9% of species were NOT connected with humans plus food (your God’s only purpose), and that has been the subject of this whole discussion: why would your God design and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food, if we were his only purpose? Now, suddenly. you are saying that only 0.1% of past species were not connected. Make up your mind!

DAVID: God's choice of evolving us makes perfect sense. He chose direct design where He wished as shown in the Cambrian.

dhw: So he wished to design and then cull 99.9 unnecessary species, although he could have directly created us if he had wished to. You do not know why, but it makes perfect sense, although you can’t make sense of it.

DAVID: It makes perfect sense for the rational. God chose this method. I assume your version of God can't make choices.

And here you agree that God chose to design and cull 99.9 unnecessary species, but you find this rational. My God is the same as your God in so far as he would only create what he wished to create. It is therefore irrational to claim that he would only have wished to create us plus food and therefore chose to create 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food. Hence your cry: “We do not know why God chose to evolve us. dhw is correct. Why not direct creation?”

Theodicy

dhw: Your all-powerful, all-knowing God was powerless to prevent evil, and yet he “directly creates what he wishes to create”, and in one of your theories he even invents evil as a challenge to humans. As first cause, he created everything out of himself, so how could he “allow evil to appear” if he was nothing but good? We don’t need proportionality to “accept” evil. Every war, murder and rape confirms that evil exists, and theodicy asks us to explain it, not accept it.

DAVID: All of the theodicy essays I've read use the same approach, the good far outweighs the evil that appears secondarily.

dhw: Your reading list does not answer any of the points that I have made. I suggest you start thinking for yourself, accept that evil exists in no matter what proportion, that theodicy attempts to reconcile evil with the theory that your God is all good, and try to find an answer to the bold above.

DAVID: I thought for myself before reading the essays on theodicy which all agree with me. The good outweighs the evil, all of which appear secondarily to God's good works: free will for us, and good bacteria and viruses necessary for the ecosystems of life.

And still you ignore the bold.
.
Theodicy: the ‘good’ view of bacteria

DAVID: note the need for friendly bacteria in the uterus and the gut. These same bacteria, accidently in the wrong place, can be unfriendly. That is not God's fault.

Your all-powerful, all-knowing designer designs bacteria. Sometimes they do good, and sometimes they do bad. Apparently that means he is responsible for the good but he is not responsible for the bad. And you think that’s logical. The builders build your house and part of the roof falls in. Do you congratulate them because the walls are still standing?