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

by dhw, Monday, April 08, 2024, 11:38 (21 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You are confused about God's choice to evolve us for His own unknown reasons.

dhw: If God exists, nothing is “known”. The problem with your theory is not “God’s choice to evolve us”, but your belief that your all-knowing but inefficient God chose to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 organisms that had nothing to do with us, and you cannot think of a single reason why he would have done so. […]

DAVID: Same confused diatribe, now bolded.: God evolved humans and all the Earth's living and mineral resources for our use.

The “confused diatribe” above is your theory. 99.9% of past life was not for our use, and you have no idea why he designed it.

DAVID: Why can't God choose His method? Simple reasoning! Perhaps direct creation is much more difficult than stepwise development.

Of course he would have chosen his method to achieve his purpose. That doesn’t mean he chose YOUR method, or YOUR purpose! Direct creation would only be more difficult if your God was not omniscient and omnipotent. But you tell us he directly created species de novo during the Cambrian. So he can do it. Why might it be easier for him to create and cull 99 irrelevant species first? Simple reasoning? No wonder you can only rely on your irrational faith to support the bolded theory.

Neutrality

dhw: […] If you cannot resolve [your] contradictions, I don’t think it’s fair to blame me.

DAVID: Invented distortions of reality are difficult to answer. I don't see your contradictions.

dhw: A few examples: 1) an all-powerful, all-knowing God with a single purpose (us plus food) is so “inefficient” (your word) that he has to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 irrelevant species.

DAVID: See above, God's choice of method.

dhw: Wrong! It's your THEORY about his choice of method. Stop pretending that you “know” God.

DAVID: You repeated the non-defence from above.

Because you have repeated your non-defence of your irrational theory by ignoring the 99.9% which were NOT for our use!

dhw: 2) Evil exists, and an all-good God created or allowed it (and is to blame for bad bugs and other natural evils), but he is still all-good because there is more good than evil.

See under “Theodicy”.

dhw: 3) God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and maybe wants us to recognize his work and worship him, but he is selfless and without self-interest.

DAVID: Wrong! God is selfless. We wish those attributes on Him.

dhw: It was you who wished for those attributes, and they completely contradict your wish that he should be selfless!

DAVID: My opinions you asked for. All 'maybes'.

Of course. And your opinions listed above contradict your opinion that your God is selfless, but you can't see any contradictions.

dhw: Your theories are full of contradictions, but you stick to what you wish for. I offer alternatives which fit in rationally with evolution’s history.

DAVID: I look for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Note many people find it. Evidence not theories.

The only theory for which you provide evidence is design. Your theories concerning God’s purpose, method, nature, responsibility for evil etc. are, according to you yourself, based on your choice of a God you “wish to believe in. The rest follows.” And your rigid belief in the God you wish to believe in relies not on evidence but on “faith which does not need rationality”.

Darwinism and God

dhw: Common descent is the key feature of Darwinism, and ID accepts that it is NOT incompatible with the design theory, and hence with the existence of a designer. Therefore ID does not say Darwinism is “completely wrong”. Only atheistic Neo-Darwinists exclude God. Theistic and agnostic Darwinists, such as the Pope, Charles Darwin and me, did/do not

DAVID: The now bolded sentence is my whole point you are trying to dispute. Everything in your whole statement is correct. […]

That should be the end of this discussion!

DAVID: Repeat: articles I present are logically, mostly Darwinist, no God allowed or considered.

Most of your scientific articles focus on how things work. There’s no reason to delve into theology. But you frequently present scientific articles by ID-ers which combine science with God, and you agree with everything I have said above. Only atheists claim that Darwinism is incompatible with God, but there are theists and agnostics – including the creator of Darwinism – who disagree. It is therefore nonsense for you to state that the two are “alternatives”.