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

by David Turell , Thursday, March 14, 2024, 17:51 (44 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Yes, I follow a mainstream philosopher, Adler. Your God-forms are not mainstream. And, yes, one view is just as valid as any other since no-one can know the factual truth. And, once again, way back you raised the issue of why God used evolution when direct creation was more efficient. I used your point to analyze evolution the way I have done.

dhw: Your analysis of God’s use of evolution (in order to achieve his one and only purpose, he “messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently” – your words, not mine - designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose) has nothing to do with Adler, is not mainstream, and does not even make sense to you. Only your God knows why he would act so inefficiently. But as far as you are concerned, even if your theory makes no sense and is not mainstream, it is just as valid as anyone else’s. My alternatives suggest a purposeful God who achieved his purpose by one of two possible forms of experimentation and/or the invention of a free-for-all. These make perfect sense, are not mainstream, but are just as valid as yours.

Of course, any God is valid. Mine is from my teachings from mainstream Adler. Yours follows process and deistic theologies, not mainstream. We will always disagree about God.

DAVID: Ah, you make more sense than God! Human sense is not equal to God sense at any time. God logic is not human logic when it comes to how to create.

dhw: Stop pretending that your senseless theory is the objective truth! My theories make more sense than yours (unless you think you are God), because each one offers a logical reason for the 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with current species. Your theory makes your God look messy and inefficient. Maybe he is. Whereabouts in mainstream theology did you find that? Nobody knows the objective truth!

Agreed above.

Experimentation

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

DAVID: Behe has described some small autonomous alterations in biochemical processes that fit the term autonomous experimentation.

dhw: I’m discussing this with you, not Behe. All speciation entails biochemical processes. If cell communities (organisms) make changes autonomously, then they must have the intelligence to know what they’re doing. What small alterations do you consider they are intelligent enough to make, and why do you think their intelligence cannot possibly extend to making large alterations? If you wish to drop the theory that organisms are intelligent enough to do some of their own designing/experimenting, and you insist that your God did it all, you are once again faced with the question of why he produced all the species that had no connection with the purpose you impose on him – the question you assiduously dodge except when you admit you have no idea.

Why do you forget I forge my theories based on what scientists present, thus a Behe sample on the exact subject. I know your theologies are various and based on some experts in the field. As for cellular intelligence, it is all coded into DNA as instructions for necessary actions, so cells LOOK as if intelligent. How does the biochemistry of cells develop conceptual material?

First cause

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. […]

DAVID: So, we are left with existing here without a first cause. […]

dhw: 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 [non-conscious] 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

DAVID: Back to equally probable on the uncomfortable picket fence.

dhw: Equally improbable, and nothing like as uncomfortable as trying to leap over a chasm and realizing midway that there is no solid ground to land on. But fortunately, if you are wrong, you will never know it, just as the atheist can never know that he/she was right. Keep your faith. Just stop pretending that you know all your God’s thought patterns, emotions, purposes, methods and attributes, and remember that if your views are as valid as any others, mainstream or not, their views are as valid as yours, mainstream or not.

As is your agnosticism. It won't punish you.