Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, January 21, 2024, 12:23 (305 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: We are left with the question why your God would deliberately have designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with what you say was his one and only purpose: us and our food. Stop dodging!

DAVID: [...] by 'food' I mean dominion over the Earth using all of its resources.

We are talking about the evolution of species. Our dominion over the Earth’s resources does not explain why your God would have designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and current species, although according to you, we and current species were his only reason for creating life.

DAVID: I don't know why God used evolution as His method of creation and don't care to know. What do you think His reasons were to evolve us, if you care to tell us.

Same old dodge: ignore the bolded issue, pretend it's about the use of evolution, and ask me yet again to repeat my alternative theories! So here we go again. First of all, let us not forget that your idea of evolution is that your God designs every species individually, developing previous species except when he decides to design species “de novo”. Secondly, as you know perfectly well, if your God exists, I have offered you three alternative theistic explanations for the history of evolution which logically explain the 99.9 per cent of species irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him: 1) if his purpose really was to design a being in his own image, he was experimenting to find the right formula; 2) if he really did design every species, he was experimenting to find out the full potential of his invention (the living cell) – a learning process which he would have enjoyed; 3) instead of experimenting directly, he endowed his invention (the living cell) with the ability to do its own designing, the progress of which he enjoyed watching. I have answered you, as I have done umpteen times in the past when you have tried to dodge the problem of the 99.9%, so please don’t repeat the next of your dodges, which is to moan about “humanization”. You have agreed that all three provide a logical explanation for the history of evolution. The rest of your post on this subject continues the dodging process, including your refusal to offer any reason why your God should have wanted to put us in charge.

Theodicy (now "prejudice")
I have inserted numbers in your post for the sake of clarity.

DAVID: 1) You forget 'reasons beyond a reasonable doubt', per Adler, can lead to a belief in God. 2) You are just as rigid in your disbelief. I have my reasons, you have yours. 3) We both believe in design of organisms, but you reject the obvious need for a designing mind. 4) xxx

1. I have never disputed the reasonableness of the design argument as evidence for the existence of your God.
2. I do not disbelieve in God. I neither believe nor disbelieve. I am an agnostic, not an atheist.
3. I do not reject the need for a designing mind (I am an agnostic), but I also offer Shapiro’s alternative, which is designing minds, in the form of cellular intelligence (which may have been designed by your God).
4. The preconceptions I was referring to, and which as usual you try to gloss over, concern your combined, self-contradictory theories of evolution (purpose us, method 99.9% not us), and your insistence that you know all about God’s nature, as well as his purpose and method, although the history of life simply doesn’t fit in with your preconceptions (the problem of theodicy).