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

by David Turell , Friday, November 03, 2023, 19:38 (176 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The line of the hypotenuse is the line from archaea to us and current species (our food). The area of the triangle (the 99.9% loss) is all the species that evolved away from that line and did not lead to us. […] (You confirm this later, as bolded)

DAVID: For some unknown paradoxical reason, the triangle example makes no sense to you. Evolution makes a triangle in its eventual developed shape. Any high school child would understand the comparison.

dhw: The triangle illustrates the degree of loss, not the shape of evolution, which you rightly describe as a bush. 99% of its branches grew away from the roots, and had no connection with those branches which have survived (us and our food). Any high school child would understand the comparison with a bush.

Fine, the bush can be illustrated by a triangular shape very naturally.

DAVID: I've never accepted the 99.9% were unconnected to God's purpose. All of evolution is connected to the past. The food is the entire bush of life.

dhw: Obviously all species at all times and on all branches had to have food. But the food for us is the current bush, so stop trying to mix the two concepts.

They are mixed. Note today's entries on vegetation and ecosystems and how vital it is for us to maintain them.

dhw: We are confined to the line of the hypotenuse.

DAVID: All life forms included the lines to us and those that provided our food.

Of course they didn’t! And you have corrected yourself in your second post:

DAVID: The hypotenuse is us and our food.

dhw: The line of the hypotenuse is from archaea to us and our food, and the area of the triangle is the 99.9% which did not include us and our food. Once more: the history of life is a bush, not a triangle.

The bush can resemble/be imagined as a triangle in its shape. Let's argue concepts please.

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?

dhw: And still you ignore the bold.

It is obvious an all-powerful God chose to use this method, or perhaps it was the only method available with evil as a secondhand effect.

Theodicy: the ‘good’ view of bacteria

dhw: 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.

DAVID: God knew the secondhand problem. There are editing systems everywhere.

dhw: Your all-powerful, all-knowing God knew that his bacteria and his humans would produce evil as well as good. (Is the good “secondhand”?) He creates what he wishes to create, remember? Editing systems? Even if he did create such systems, the evil consists in those “bads” which despite his alleged hatred of evil and his all-powerfulness, he was powerless to prevent – though according to one of your theories he actually invented the “bads” as a challenge to us humans. What a mess!

DAVID: Your perceived mess. […] Your view of a mess, not mine. Proportionality is the right view. […] God knew secondhand evil would happen, and knew the good outweighed it.

dhw: War, murder, rape etc. exist. What percentage of reality they form is irrelevant to the question why and how a first-cause God can knowingly create a system that will produce such evil and yet be called all-good.

The good God gave us far outweighs the evil side effect. Are you happy to be living??