Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, March 09, 2024, 08:27 (257 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Raup's estimate of loss of organisms is a cumulative total, which cannot be assumed is the same rate of loss for every living species. The human tree may be more or less! Back to the same question, why did God evolve us over 3.5 billion years +/-?

That is only part of the question. Will you never stop dodging? This whole discussion revolves around the fact that the vast majority of species (regardless of exact figures at particular times) did not lead to us and our contemporary species, as you explicitly agreed in the following exchange, which you keep trying to ignore:

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.

And the question is why, if your God’s sole purpose was to design us and our food, as you claim, he designed and then culled the vast majority of species that had no connection with that purpose. You have no idea. You ridicule it as being a messy, cumbersome, inefficient way of achieving the purpose you impose on him, but you refuse to consider any alternative explanation of evolution’s history.

Experimentation

DAVID: An all-knowing omniscient God has no need to experiment!!!

dhw: Obviously. So in order to understand why he would design and cull 99.9 irrelevant species, we should consider the possibility that we plus our food were NOT his one and only purpose, or that he is not omniscient but is a God who likes to try out new ideas, make discoveries, or even give his creations the freedom to do their own inventing (as indeed you believe he has done with humans).

DAVID: See new theodicy article which shows how you don't understand how to basically consider God.

See below.

DAVID (re “experimentation”): Stop applying my thoughts to Behe. I quote what he exactly offers, and occasionally he uses a species for example. He's offered polar bears previously.

After correction of the misquote (automatic instead of autonomous), your statement was: “How much the twigs [dinosaurs] came from some degree of autonomous experimentation I see as a possibility.” Although strangely phrased, it is clear that you believe in the possibility of autonomous experimentation. If Behe means it can result in speciation, and you think it is possible, then perhaps you and he are heading towards acceptance of Shapiro’s theory that organisms do their own designing. If that is not what you mean, then please explain what you DO mean.

Adler

dhw: […] apparently his instructions have led you to a raft of illogical conclusions and self-contradictions.

DAVID: But! He tells how we have to properly think about God!

dhw: The article below, which you support, makes it clear that nobody knows how to “properly” think about God.

No reply. It seems that we agree, so apart from Adler’s “proof” of God’s existence, he becomes irrelevant to our discussions.

Theodicy: skeptical theist view of God

QUOTE: "Given that God has exhaustive knowledge and is much wiser than we are, it would not at all be surprising if God has knowledge that we lack access to — knowledge that is relevant to one or more of his decisions. (David’s bold).[…] we should be cautious about overstating what we can assert with confidence about what God would or would not do or allow to happen.”

dhw: He is anything but a skeptical theist! Your bold alone shows he has total faith, and his skepticism applies purely to human pronouncements about the nature of God. […] “Overstating with confidence” applies just as much to his proposal that God might plausibly have knowledge which justifies evil as to the proposal that God’s powers might plausibly be limited, or that God plausibly couldn’t care less about the damage his invention has caused. It also applies to every theory that you have not only proposed but actually believe in.

DAVID: The now-bolded part of your response is the key to thinking about God. We are analyzing guesswork every time we describe God's personality, His possible motives, His personal feelings, etc. ad nauseum.

Correct. Hence my next comment:

dhw: The only safe approach will therefore be to stop theorizing altogether. For instance, don’t tell us his only motive for creating life was to design humans and our food, that his messy, inefficient method of doing so was to design 99.9% of species that were irrelevant to his purpose, that he is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, that he might want us to recognize us and worship him, have a relationship with him, enjoy creating and be interested in his creations. Just say God exists and we cannot “assert with confidence” what he would or wouldn’t do, or what he wants, or what he is like. And we should get rid of most religions, because they are based on confident but overstated assertions – e.g. his omnipotence, omniscience, all- goodness and wish to be worshipped.

DAVID: Try leaping the chasm as I have. Suddenly lots of the so-called problems make perfect sense.

You are advocating precisely what the article (perhaps unwittingly) condemns: you think we should accept all the baseless, confidently overstated assumptions listed above – and reject any other guesses which you disapprove of.