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

by dhw, Tuesday, December 05, 2023, 14:07 (144 days ago) @ David Turell

I have done some more telescoping.

dhw: I accept the process of evolution. I do not accept the totally illogical theory bolded above. Either you’ve got the wrong purpose, or you’ve got the wrong method, or both, or your all-powerful, all-knowing God is a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer. You opt for the latter, and refuse to consider any other possibility.

DAVID: Not the wrong method. You accept evolution!

Of course I do. But you claim that your God’s method of fulfilling his one and only purpose (us plus food) was to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose. You yourself cannot find any explanation for this combination, so either you’ve got the purpose or the method wrong etc., as above.

DAVID: It is my view evolution is a messy way to create rather than instant. God used evolution, but that doesn't mean God is a messy designer. His designs in evolution are brilliant.

If your God uses a messy way to fulfil his one and only purpose, then he is a messy designer. I am the one who emphasizes the brilliance of his designs, and who rejects your claim of messiness by suggesting that instead of designing the wrong things and having to get rid of them, he designs precisely what he wants to design.

Bechly

QUOTE: "I currently and provisionally still think that the total evidence of all lines of data favors common descent as the most parsimonious and most elegant explanation. However, I definitely remain open (and now more sympathetic) to alternatives like progressive creation combined with other explanations for the pattern of biological similarities..."_

dhw: All agreed. It's a good agnostic approach. But I’m surprised that he doesn’t mention Shapiro’s alternative “intelligent agency”, namely the intelligent cell, which allows for both Nature "diddit" and God "diddit".

DAVID: Not many scientists follow Shapiro closely as you do. You are narrowly wedded to his ideas.

dhw: My own approach is not “narrowly wedded”. Like Bechly, I favour one theory but remain open to others. For instance, the view of your God experimenting in order to find the right formula to create a being like himself has nothing to do with Shapiro. Why don’t you follow Bechly’s example and open that closed mind of yours?

And:

dhw: why do you refuse to consider the possibility that instead of your God being a messy and inefficient designer, he is - for instance - a highly efficient experimental scientist, trying new things, eager to make new discoveries, or to give himself new ideas?

DAVID: Note an 'experimental scientist' doesn't know the outcomes. Not God-like at all.

Messiness, cumbersomeness and inefficiency are hardly “god-like”. Nobody knows what God is like – or even if he exists – so please stop pretending you know. (But see Part One of “More Miscellany", in which you kindly explain the reason for your prejudice.)

Theodicy

dhw: [Goff’s] preference for a God with limited powers does not mean that he defines all-powerful as meaning with limited powers!

DAVID: That is what Goff and I accept.

He opts for limited powers. He does not define “all-powerful” as meaning “with limited powers”. You are making a mockery of language. I can’t believe that Goff would do the same.

DAVID: (under "microbiomes in vaginas”): You see the bugs are good. The reality we live in includes bad bugs.

dhw: I’ve never denied that there are good and bad things. Theodicy asks how the bad can mean that your first-cause Creator of everything that exists can be all-good.

DAVID: The theodicy answers point out proportionality.

Question: how can a first-cause, all-good God be the creator of evil? Your answer: by creating 90% good and only creating 10% evil. (Use whatever percentage you like, and then go and stand in the corner for giving such a silly answer. )