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

by dhw, Wednesday, March 27, 2024, 09:14 (31 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] unfortunately all these logical beliefs of yours miss out your immutable belief that your God also designed and culled 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with humans and our needs, and you have no idea why he would have done so. You can only speculate that he did so because he is a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

This is the theory which has led to years of disagreement between us and which you constantly try to dodge because it is so fundamental to your personal, anthropocentric theology. You admit that you can find no logical explanation, but you cling to it and even ridicule God for his inefficiency, as if somehow you know that your view of his purpose and method is the one and only possible truth. In the comments that preceded this part of my post, you trotted out all the generalisations that make sense, but both there and here you have simply dodged the issue.

dhw: There are, however, perfectly logical explanations for the existence of all the organisms and econiches that came and went long before humans appeared on the scene. But you refuse to consider them on the grounds that a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer is more godlike than a designer who deliberately conducts experiments, or wants a free-for-all, and enjoys creating and/or learning new things.

DAVID: You always scurry back to your humanized God who basically doesn't know how to evolve us and must experiment to achieve His goal. Ridiculous!

dhw: Why is that more ridiculous and more “humanized” than a God who inexplicably and inefficiently takes the trouble to design and then get rid of 99.9 species out of 100 that have no connection with his one and only purpose? Not to mention a God whose only purpose in creating humans is to make sure they love him of their own free will, regardless of all the harmful consequences of his needs? (See your approval of Plantinga’s theory.)

DAVID: Plantinga explained in that thread today. You have planted Plantinga's total theology specifically in my brain. Think! I use bits and pieces, as usual for me and for discussion.

You produced the article, did not offer a single criticism, and accepted and still accept his explanation of theodicy, which was the whole point of the article!

GIANT ARMORED SPECIES BEFORE DINOSAURS

DAVID: It shouldn't surprise you that I cannot reason at God's level of reasoning that you demand.

dhw: What surprises me is that you THINK you are thinking at God’s level. But maybe God didn’t design the aetosaur, or maybe he had a good reason for designing it, and is not the messy, inefficient designer you denigrate.

DAVID: God's use of evolution means He chose a cumbersome method of evolution.

dhw: No it doesn’t. It is your theory about his use of evolution that makes his method messy, cumbersome and inefficient. And it is your blinkered vision that makes you denigrate his powers in this manner.

DAVID: I don't denigrate His powers as your experimenting God does.

dhw: I’m surprised that you don’t regard “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient” as denigrating, but I’m getting used to your habit of reversing the meaning of words. I don’t regard experimenting, learning, discovering, enjoyment, interest etc. as “denigrating”.

DAVID: That view of God makes Him humanized and thus lessened.

And a God who wants to be loved, who enjoys creating (as you have agreed), and whose method of design is messy and inefficient is not “humanized” and is more godlike?