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

by dhw, Saturday, March 16, 2024, 10:08 (42 days ago) @ David Turell

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

dhw: I pointed out two schools of theistic thought that you apparently didn’t know about, whereupon you dodged to “mainstream”. Then what did you say? If they’re not mainstream, they’re “not worth using”.

DAVID: I know of process theology and Deism long ago, but knew they were peripheral to what I consider mainstream.

You wrote above: “I have never found the sort of God you describe in any of it.” Now you say you found it. But it’s not mainstream (i.e. what you believe), and so it’s “not worth using”. Your theory about your God’s messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of achieving his one and only goal is not mainstream, but you consider it as valid as any other. Hence your double standards.

DAVID: I have my personal view of God as you do, but now you have educated me as to how these two approaches fit your humanized God. "My view of God is mine and just as valid as any other." That is a statement that fits all of us, doesn't it?

My different versions of God are no more “humanized” than yours, but in assessing the feasibility of the different theories, I do not resort to the blatant double standards you apply: according to you, my theories are not mainstream and therefore not worth using, but your non-mainstream theories are as valid as any others!

DAVID: As for any criticism of your God, what I criticize is your demanding that God should not have evolved us. Evolution had the purpose of creating us. Once I apply purpose you start howling.

This is the worst of your dodges. I DO NOT DEMAND THAT GOD – if he exists – SHOULD NOT HAVE EVOLVED US. I demand a reason why your God would deliberately and inefficiently design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the purpose you impose on him. I have offered you three purposeful, logical explanations for the 99.9% extinctions, and it is you who howl, because they don’t fit in with your preconceptions of an omniscient, omnipotent, selfless God, whose only purpose was to design us plus our food. (See the Plantinga article.)

Experimentation

DAVID: 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.

dhw: There is no point in pretending that science supports theism and ignoring the fact that probably just as many scientists support atheism. Science is no more capable of proving or disproving God than philosophy, theology, or you. And still you dodge the question of what alterations your “autonomous experimentation” can produce, and why an autonomous mechanism (possibly designed by your God) would be incapable of producing the innovations that lead to speciation.

DAVID: You struggle back to secondhand design, a very complicated way to design anything.

Not complicated if your God’s purpose was to enjoy and learn from the invention of something he endowed with the freedom to do its own designing (humans included). Perfectly logical by comparison with the messy, inefficient combination of purpose and method you impose on him. See the Plantinga article for more nonsensical contradictions.

Cellular intellligence

DAVID: 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?

dhw: Back you go to your godlike knowledge that what LOOKS intelligent can’t possibly BE intelligent. How does the biochemistry of cells develop the intelligence to develop any kind of material? You tell me. Nobody has yet found the source of intelligence/consciousness (the two go together, no matter what may be the degree). .

DAVID: I've never accepted consciously thinking cells.

Congratulations on the steadfastness with which you close your mind. But I do not ask you to accept what is only a theory. I only ask you to accept that the theory is feasible, which you have now done. (See "Immunity system complexity" and “Is sentience everywhere?”)

First cause

dhw: Thank you for indirectly acknowledging that my alternative theories of evolution and of God are as valid as yours. I hope that will stop you once and for all from pretending that you know God’s intentions, methods and nature.

DAVID: I know the answers I prefer based on logic.

Yes, you start with the “form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” As for logic, you have no idea why your God would choose the inefficient method of achieving the purpose you impose on him; you solve the problem of evil by telling us to focus on the good; your God wants us to recognize, worship and love him (you agree with Plantinga), and enjoys creating, but he is selfless; he is omnipotent, but tries in vain to prevent the evil caused by the bugs he designed and knew would be harmful….need I go on?