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

by dhw, Monday, November 27, 2023, 12:20 (152 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I've never denied my theology is mine.

But you constantly refer back to Adler, as if he supported the wacky theories you keep defending. And you keep omitting the wackiest of them all: that your God's only purpose was to design us plus food, and so he individually designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species which had no connection with what you think was his one and only purpose. And you keep hiding behind generalisations which are clearly logical in order to dodge the illogicality of the above. You use the same dodge in your next comment:

DAVID: Simple logic you refuse to entertain: God as creator established our entire reality...

Obviously logical, assuming God exists.

DAVID: ...evolution is part of our reality.

Creationists might disagree, but I am 100% with you.

DAVID: God created it as you agree.

Not quite. There is always the caveat: if God exists. But if he does, of course I agree with your logic. No problem so far.

DAVID: But as soon as I say humans are His purpose, per Adler, your thinking gets all twisted in knots.

One of my theistic theories (experimentation in order to find the right formula) allows for this possibility. However, it’s important to note that in your theory, humans (plus food) are your God’s one and only purpose, and this is the start of the absurdity you are so desperate to conceal.

DAVID: He didn't cull out what is on Earth now.

Of course he didn’t. We (plus food) are the descendants of the 0.1% of species he did not cull!

DAVID: Culling is a definite part of evolutionary processes. Stop being confused by the past.

This is the final, colossal dodge. How many evolutionary processes for creating and developing life do you know of? The fact that 99.9% of species came to a dead end does not mean that nonsensically your all-powerful God either wanted or had to design and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the only purpose you allow him to have.

Defining evolution

dhw: More dodging. The dispute between us is not over the existence of gaps, but the fact that you keep referring to evolution but now say that God created evolution as an imitation of evolution! Since he’s supposed to be first cause of everything, what does that mean? He invented evolution, but his evolution was an imitation of his evolution? Or God imitated Darwin? You constantly emphasize the gaps, you categorically state that every gap means separate creation “de novo”, unlike Adler you reject Darwin’s theory, you have your God individually designing not only every species but also every lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc. , and you had no problem when I pointed out that your beliefs amounted to Creationism, which is the opposite of evolution[…] You agree that you are a Creationist, and not an evolutionist. So be it. You can of course believe whatever you want, but please don’t tell us separate creation is synonymous with evolution.

DAVID: Not synonymous but mimicking is the word I use.

How can separate creation of species mimic the development of species from earlier ancestors?

Theodicy

DAVID: My God is all-powerful within some limits.

dhw: Same daft definition as before: sorry, but you can’t be all-powerful if your powers are limited.

No need for me to go through all your dodges.

dhw: In brief, your solution to the problem of theodicy is to avoid it.

DAVID: I've never found an essay on theodicy that is any different in approach.

dhw: Then why don’t you try thinking for yourself? Alternatively, accept the fact that there is no basis for such assumptions as God being all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing etc.

DAVID: You have your milk-toast God. I prefer mine all-everything.

My point is not that there is a “milk-toast” God, but that if you can’t find any answer to the problem posed by theodicy, you should stop making assumptions which lead to such absurdities as the definition of all-powerful as power with limitations.