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

by David Turell , Monday, March 11, 2024, 22:58 (46 days ago) @ dhw

David's theory of evolution

DAVID: The humanized versions of God's actions, proposed by you, make no sense to me. God is not human as you state, and then promptly forget when you put God is charge of evolution.

dhw: Your usual attempt to dodge the total illogicality of your theory bolded above. You have acknowledged the logic of my alternative theories (two forms of experimentation or a free-for-all), and your only objection is that these turn him into a human being, which is manifest nonsense. A God who experiments and learns and enjoys is still an eternal, immaterial and sourceless being who can create a universe. And he is no more human than a God who messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designs and then culls 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with his one and only purpose.

I follow theistic thinking as presented by several sources. I have never found the sort of God you describe in any of it. The culling described by Raup is not the way it should be stated in your distorted way: Raup says 99.9% of all organisms died to produce today's 0.1% survivors. Never a word about species, which you have purposely added to create a view of God as an experimenting, humanized unrecognizable form of a God.

Experimentation

dhw: […] 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.

DAVID: Why keep asking? I don't use the word autonomous as you insist upon doing. Species adapt autonomously using God's DNA guidelines!

dhw" “Autonomous” means having the ability to work, design, make decisions etc. independently of any outside control. That means without guidelines/instructions/directions from outside. Species don’t just adapt – they also innovate. You have not withdrawn the word “experimentation”, so in effect you have now agreed that organisms might possibly conduct their own experiments. I have also offered you an alternative: that God conducts experiments. But since you think autonomous means the exact opposite of autonomous, maybe you think experimentation means the exact opposite of experimentation. You’d have been better off simply retracting your belief that autonomous experimentation is a possibility.

Behe has quoted minor biochemical variations that organisms do invent. As for 'autonomous', do you consider yourself autonomous?

Adler

dhw: 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 taught me.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: I developed those thories by following Adler's guidelines.

Then I suspect he’ll be turning in his grave at all the contradictions and illogicalities you ascribe to his guidelines.

Theodicy: skeptical theist view of God

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!!

dhw: 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.)

DAVID: Logically there must be a first cause. Undeniable. Living biochemistry requires a designing mind. At this point you and I part company.

dhw: No we don’t. I accept the logic of the design argument. But this is balanced by the illogicality of an unknown, immaterial, conscious mind simply being there for ever without having any source. Your “sceptical theist” has perhaps unwittingly condemned the overstated assumptions that arise from your leap over what you admit is a chasm.

So, we are left with existing here without a first cause. You are here, with all of your magnificent biochemistry, from a series of chance contingencies. Glad you made it against all the odds!!!