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

by David Turell , Thursday, December 14, 2023, 17:41 (135 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: We feed on the CURRENT bush of life. We do not feed on the 99.9 species you say your God designed and had to cull because they had no connection with us or our food. Please stop playing silly word games.

Your view of evolution is totally backwards and baseless. Whether you realize it or not, your view is God should not have used evolution to create us.

DAVID: God's purpose is to produce humans and their dominion over the Earth to provide our food, today's actual situation.

dhw: I’m aware of today’s situation, but like you, I can make no sense of the bolded theory above that he designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species in order to reach it. And so since “he produces exactly what he chooses to produce”, he may have had a different purpose for designing the 99.9 species, or he didn’t design them at all, but enabled them to design themselves (e.g. see the article on extremophiles in “More Miscellany, Part Two).

Same point is simply God should not have evolved us. Don't invent a present which does not exist. The facts reasonably reach the conclusion God wanted us to appear and rule the Earth.

dhw: Our math discussion is from the very beginning, not from the Cambrian, and birds represent the 0.1% that survived from the dino era. (But crocodiles may also be descendants. Maybe 0.2% survived.)

DAVID: Mathematically, 0.1% is every living form on Earth now. Death of 99.9% of all predecessors produced the 0.1% living today.

dhw: How can dead ends produce anything? The 0.1% (if the figures are correct) of today are the descendants from the lines of the 0.1% that survived extinction. And you in particular have vehemently opposed the very idea that we and our food are descended from the 99.9% through your insistence that the life forms from which we and our food are descended were all created “de novo”, i.e. without precursors, during the Cambrian.

The 'dead ends' are culled branches from the direct lines that led to all on Earth now. If it were all 'dead ends', nothing would be alive today. You are upside down and backwards in your crazy analysis.

DAVID: That is how Raup analyzed the math of evolution. In any evolution there is loss leading to the present. You are still complaining about God's method.

dhw: Your Raup quote made no mention of the 99.9% being direct ancestors of us and our food. We only know of one evolution of life, so I don’t know what other evolutions you’re talking about. But I’m not denying loss, and I’m not complaining about your God’s method. If your God exists, I’ve offered three logical explanations for the loss, and my complaint is entirely about your illogical theory concerning your God’s messy, cumbersome and inefficient method (your description of it).

Your three explanations create a humanized God. Evolution is a cumbersome method compared to dierct creation like the Cambrian.

Theodicy
dhw: Evil exists, and the question is how your first cause God could have invented evil and yet be all-good. It is not answered by saying there’s only 10% (or whatever) evil compared to 90% (or whatever) good!

DAVID: Proportionality is 99.9% good, 0.1% evil.

I have no idea where you got such figures from, but they are irrelevant anyway. Whatever the proportion, evil exists, and percentages do not answer the question posed above.

DAVID: I take the approach God knows the correct things to create.

dhw: “Correct”? Your all-powerful God would create whatever he wanted to create!

DAVID: Agreed.

And so we are left with the question how your all-powerful, all-knowing God, no matter whether he WANTED to create these causes of evil or was powerless to prevent the molecular ones, can be all good.

DAVID: Back to faith you refuse to consider. We like God as He is. Not the answer you want. We fully recognize the points you make and are satisfied with our responses. It is a Dayenu position.

dhw: The question is not about whether you like him or not, but about his nature. Your solution to the theodicy problem is to say you know there’s a problem but it doesn’t matter (a) because there’s more good than evil, or (b) because in spite of the problem you still believe he’s all-good, or (c) even if he’s part evil, you like him as he is.

Good analysis of the theodicy position of believers, but you left out: Evil exists secondary to God's good works.