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

by dhw, Sunday, March 10, 2024, 11:47 (48 days ago) @ David Turell

David's theory of evolution

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: 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.

DAVID: All your alternatives humanize God. Your theories torture the obvious role of evolution to cull twigs and advance complexity, arriving at our brain.

God is not a human being, but you accept the possibility that he has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and you load him with attributes whose existence – like his own – cannot be proved. Evolution is a process, and according to you it is directed by your God, who deliberately, messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that were not connected with the purpose you impose on him. And you have no idea why he would have done so. It makes no sense. Stop dodging.

Experimentation

DAVID: How much the twigs [dinosaurs] came from some degree of automatic [corrected to autonomous] experimentation I see as a possibility.”

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Shapiro's reasonable theory has no proof. Behe sees minor biochemical adaptations.

The God theory, the divine dabble theory, and the 3.8-billion-year-old instruction book theory have no proof, but you think autonomous experimentation is a possibility, and I keep asking what you meant by it. You keep refusing to answer. However, you contradict yourself so often that if you wish to retract your belief in the possibility of autonomous experimentation, please do so, and I’ll stop asking what you meant.

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.

DAVID: Not irrelevant. He tought me.

Apart from the one exception above, he did not teach you any of the theories you propose, including those in which you contradict yourself. Stop hiding behind him.

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: 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 him 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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Faith does that!!

Yes, it makes you overstate what you can “assert with confidence about” what your God might do, want and be. Atheists go so far as to assert with confidence that God does not exist. Try leaping their chasm, and suddenly lots of the so-called problems will make perfect sense (e.g. your God’s apparent inefficiency in designing and culling 99.9 irrelevant species out of 100; why God would have to create zillions of stars in order to design one planet suitable for life; how an all-good God can design evil; how an immaterial conscious mind can simply “be” there for ever, without having any source).