Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, January 17, 2024, 12:25 (101 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I don’t need reasons for God’s actions. […[

dhw: But if you don’t know the reasons for your God’s actions in creating life, why do you insist that you do know the reason: to create us and our food? And why do you insist that you even know his method: to design 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with his reason for creating life?

DAVID: The only way I can know God is studying His works. We are the unexpected result of natural evolution. Therefore, we must have been designed by God, as the only plausible explanation. Pure Adlerism. Life is a miracle and humans even more miraculous. Living in a miracle softens the surprise. Your reaction is extremely soft.

Your evasions are becoming painful. The miracle of life and of humans is your evidence for design and the existence of God. That is not the subject of our discussion, which is your theistic theories of evolution bolded above which, when combined, make no sense even to you .

DAVID: My constant answer is God does not create for self-serving purposes.

dhw: So although all your guesses [...] are clearly self-serving, your strong answer is that all your guesses are wrong, and you blame me if I propose that one of your guesses might be right.

DAVID: Still all guesswork. I propose a strong purposeful God, not producing for His own needs, as your does.

The guesses I quoted were all yours (enjoyment and interest, desire to be worshipped, have his work recognized, maybe form a relationship with us).

99.9& versus 0.1%

dhw: […] Apart from the purpose of survival, please tell us the purpose for which the 99.9% of extinct species existed and for which the current 0.1% exist.

DAVID: A production of humans to control the Earth.

dhw: But as you have now agreed, 99.9% of past species had no connection with humans or our food. They all lived in their respective ecosystems, and they and their ecosystems died out. So what do you think was their purpose? And while we're at it, what might be his purpose for giving humans control of the Earth?

DAVID: The 99.9% are all the ancestors of the living beings here today. You seem to have a problem with that estimate. As for control, God have humans the brains to run the show.

This is becoming unbearable. Jan. 2nd:
dhw: Only the 0.1% led to current forms.
DAVID: We agree.
And Jan. 9th: I am not disagreeing.

Jan. 11th: dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% o all the creatures that ever lived.
DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

You keep agreeing that the 99.9% of extinct organisms are N0T our ancestors, and then you say they are. However, you made a muddled comment after the last agreement, which you finally clarified on Jan.12th:

DAVID: Our direct human line had a loss of ancestors at the 99.9% level, as per Raup.

No problem. But now back you go to the absurd statement that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all the organisms that have ever lived. You have even suggested that maybe 100% of dinosaurs had no connection with us or our food, i.e. there is not even a 0.1% connection! Please stop prolonging the agony with all these self-contradictions!

I asked you what might be your purposeful God’s purpose for giving humans control of the Earth. Your answer: God gave humans the brains to run the show. Does that tell us his purpose?

Theodicy (now "prejudice")

dhw: Prejudice always has a root in the past. You form an opinion, and from then on you stick to it even if it doesn’t make sense. […] I can’t decide whether God exists or not. If he does, I consider different hypotheses about his possible purposes, nature and methods. I find some more convincing than others (and try to explain why), but none are convincing enough for me to form a firm belief. Somewhere along the line, I am wrong, but I do not see my personal indecisiveness as prejudice.

DAVID: Indecisiveness is a state of mind with a cause in your background. You told us you found the God of the OT frightening, or roughly implied that. Did that childhood impression reman as a strong influence?

I can assure you that my indecisiveness (which is virtually the opposite of prejudice) has arisen not from my dislike of the nasty God of the OT, but from the fact that the more I think about the whole subject, the more I become aware of the pros and cons, of my own ignorance as well as that of others, and the to me obvious fact that unless there is an afterlife in which the truth is revealed, I shall never be in a position to know the truth. And I don’t even know if there is an afterlife. Unlike you, I have no fixed beliefs to which I cling, no matter how illogical they may be. Do you regard this as prejudice?