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

by dhw, Tuesday, March 12, 2024, 09:20 (46 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: I follow theistic thinking as presented by several sources. I have never found the sort of God you describe in any of it.

Process theology rejects the theory of divine omnipotence and omniscience, and since God doesn’t know the future, he must be capable of learning and is not immutable. Deists propose that your God initiated creation and then allowed it to run its own course (free-or-all). Many theologians, including the Pope, accept Darwin’s theory of evolution, but please tell me which theologians preach that an omnipotent, omniscient God deliberately, messily, cumbersomely, inefficiently and incomprehensibly designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species in order to fulfil his sole purpose of designing us and our contemporary species.

DAVID: 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.

It’s not the 99.9% of extinct organisms that produced today’s 0.1% survivors. You have agreed that we and our food were produced by the 0.1% of organisms that survived all the extinctions. I’m not arguing with Raup. I’m trying to find an explanation for YOUR illogical theory bolded above. Experimentation or a free-for-all would explain the 99.9%.

Experimentation
dhw: […] you think autonomous experimentation is a possibility, and I keep asking what you meant by it. You keep refusing to answer. […]

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. […] 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 [...] maybe you think experimentation means the exact opposite of experimentation. […]

DAVID: Behe has quoted minor biochemical variations that organisms do invent.

I'm asking YOU what YOU meant by “autonomous experimentation”, because YOU thought it was a possibility. You refuse to answer.

DAVID: As for 'autonomous', do you consider yourself autonomous?

You have tried to reverse the meaning of autonomous, refuse to explain what you were referring to, and now ask a totally irrelevant question, which would lead to a discussion on free will. I remain neutral on the subject, which we have discussed ad nauseam. Please stop dodging.

Adler

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.

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

I’m pleased to see you have not responded. I trust this is the last we shall hear of Adler’s role in your wacky theories.

Theodicy: skeptical theist view of God

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.

DAVID: 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!!!

We are not left here without a first cause! The choice lies between a mysterious, unknowable, supremely conscious mind without a source and an infinite mass of energy and matter which in the course of eternity eventually chanced to produce a rudimentary form of life and consciousness that evolved into us and every other species. I find both equally difficult to believe, because each produces what you call a chasm, and you must abandon all reason if you choose to leap over it.