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

by dhw, Sunday, March 17, 2024, 11:42 (249 days ago) @ David Turell

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

dhw: 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.

Not only do you have double standards, but as well as pretending you know God’s thoughts, you accuse me of thoughts I have never had:

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.
And:
Your criticism of His evolutionary method is boldy obvious. Stop denying it.

dhw: 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.
In other words, I am critical of the messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of achieving the purpose you impose on your God in your derogatory and illogical theory of evolution. Stop denying it!

Experimentation

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Back to your wish for an overly human God.

This is no more “overly human” than Plantinga’s view of a self-centred God who wants us humans to love him of our own free will, even if this means untold suffering through the evil that free will allows (not to mention the nasty bugs and the natural disasters that he either creates or allows in his love for us).

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.

dhw: 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?

DAVID: And I am happy with Plantinga's approach. Mainstream theology!!!

We’re talking about your logic, not Plantinga’s God, who in his all-goodness is happy to allow all the misery caused by evil, so long as some people love him of their own free will. And you are happy with this too. Shame on you!