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

by dhw, Thursday, April 11, 2024, 09:33 (224 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] God evolved humans and all the Earth's living and mineral resources for our use.

dhw: […] 99.9% of past life was not for our use, and you have no idea why he designed it.

DAVID: To evolve the present the 99.9% past organisms HAD to live, by the definition of evolution.
And (under "neutrality”):
DAVID: 99.9% who died were in various lines leading to the life here now. Evolution defined!

Evolution is defined as “the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms.” That does not mean that every past organism was an ancestor of present forms. For present forms, only 0.1% HAD to live. Stop ignoring your agreement:
dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

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

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Your tiny human brain outthinks God! It is God's historical method, not mine!

When will you stop assuming that your irrational interpretation of his purpose and method is the objective truth?

David’s contradictions:

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'.

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

DAVID: Maybes must be real in o distorted world.

All our opinions are maybes, since nobody knows God (assuming he exists). The contradiction is glaringly obvious when you express your opinion that he wants us to worship him, and then you express your opinion that he is selfless!

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: The way it works is evidence first, then faith.

Yet another of your blatant self-contradictions! You wrote: ““I first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” How many “firsts” are there in your “first”?

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. […]

How can I be disputing my own statement which is correct?

DAVID: You have pointed out the alternatives yourself in how the articles are written.

Why do you keep dragging this out? Atheists will claim that Darwinism and God are alternatives. Theists and agnostics (including Darwin himself) will claim that the two are compatible. You agree, and that should be the end of this long-drawn out discussion.