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

by David Turell , Thursday, February 15, 2024, 18:27 (280 days ago) @ dhw

99.9% and 0.1%

This whole discussion has been a (fairly) successful attempt to divert attention away from the basic question I have been posing for years. Let us end the digression with the all-important quote:

dhw: DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WE AND OUR FOOD ARE DIRECTLY DESCENDED FROM 99.9% OF ALL CREATURES THAT EVER LIVED?

DAVID: NO. FROM THE 0.1% SURVIVING.

dhw: Let us now forget about percentages, and consider each of your theories one by one. You have accepted that there have been species from which we and our food (our contemporary species) are not descended. Your theory is that we and all current species were your God’s purpose from the very beginning. You believe that he individually created every species that ever lived. You believe that he culled all the species that were not going to lead to contemporary species. QUESTION: Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God deliberately, messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently design and then cull species which he knew were not going to lead to the only species he wanted to design?
In the past you have admitted that you don’t know the answer. But you refuse to accept the possibility that one or more of your basic premises might be wrong.

Please pinpoint anything in the above that you disagree with. If you accept its accuracy, we can end the discussion on percentages, which sheds no light on the question.

Again, I have no idea why God chose to evolve us. I see a purposeful God setting out lines of specific organisms to fit His final goals of all the species on the Earth for humans to use.

No lines were ever sacrificed., which is your premise. What God destroyed were twigs/branches of lines He trimmed away. I have the same complaint you have. Evolution is a messy system. How much the twigs came from some degree of automatic experimentation I see as a possibility.

Purpose

DAVID: God does not create to satisfy an inner need or self-interest.
But:
DAVID: I agree all of us has the right to imagine God in their own way.

dhw: So stop pretending you know best, and therefore my alternatives (e.g. experimentation, discovery, enjoyment) are impossible. Nobody knows the truth, and our theories are equally subjective. The only difference is that mine logically fit history without criticizing your God, whereas yours defy logic and ridicule your God.

DAVID: Thank you for protecting my God.

dhw: I don’t understand why you insist that he’s inefficient, just because you can’t conceive that at least one of your illogical theories might be wrong.

DAVID: I'm honest about my view of God. If you see only purpose, your muddled mind will understand.

dhw: If your God exists, I have absolutely no doubt that he would have had a purpose in designing life. I’m not questioning your honesty, but I am questioning why you ridicule him by limiting him to one purpose and making out that he devoted himself to messily and inefficiently designing species that had no connection with his purpose. And I question your assumptions about his nature, which frequently contradict your own views of his nature, e.g. he wants us to worship him, but he has no self-interest.

First, my God did not produce us so we would worship Him. That worship might happen was quite a secondary thought. Yes, I limit the possibilities; we are here running the Earth. That is the true endpoint. The bold is your usual distortion. As above, no intended lines were discarded, as you imply. God trimmed the bush of life to reach the present species on Earth.