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

by David Turell , Friday, April 12, 2024, 21:07 (17 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Here we go again! Yes, our ancestors are dead and are a fraction of the 99.9% of species that ever lived. But you have your God specially creating and culling all those lines that did not lead to us and our food, and you have no idea why he would have created them in the first place if his one and only aim was to design us and our food. Stop dodging!

Your concept of evolution with a purpose has caused you to criticize the process that is history. Humans and the Earth's resources are the end point of past evolution. We use those resources, so what is unnecessary? The past is what was culled. Come into the present. That is all that is important. Evolution implies culling, doesn't it?

DAVID: Assuming God in charge, evolution happened. Therefore, God's chosen method of creation. Rationality demands, per Adler, humans prove God!

dhw: Adler provided an argument for God’s existence, but apparently not for your inexplicable and God-denigrating theory of evolution. Yes, evolution happened, and if God exists, of course it was his chosen method of creation. But that does not mean he chose to design and cull vast numbers of species that had nothing to do with the purpose you impose on him.

Everything was important when you use the concept of 'purpose'. You see design, but not the purposeful designer.

David’s contradictions:

dhw: 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!

DAVID: The point is God does not need to create so we will worship Him. He has no desires for Himself.

dhw: That is just as much a “maybe” opinion as your opinion that maybe he wants us to worship him, and your two opinions contradict each other.

The answer is yours. WE don't know. But at 'the level of how many angels can dance on a pin head', it is pure guess work opinions.

dhw: 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”?

DAVID: I studied "How to think about God" from Adler before choosing a form of God to accept.

dhw: And once you had chosen the form of God you wished to accept, the rest followed, i.e. all your inexplicable theories and all your “maybe” opinions about the nature of your God, including the contradictions.

See 'pinhead' point above. When I picked an omniscient, all powerful God, the results followed logically.

Darwinism and God

DAVID: Will you finally accept your objections are all off point. I was showing most of the literature are written from Darwinist standpoints, nothing more.

dhw: This is getting ridiculous. The starting point of this discussion was an article on the theoretical origin of life, concerning which you wrote: “Two alternatives exist: God or nature. The article is pure naturalist, therefore Darwinist.” This means that Darwinism excludes God. It doesn’t. You have agreed, and your moans about atheistic articles are off point.

Your scrambled extrapolation continues. History: Darwin grudgingly offered God in latter editions to fight off the criticism he received.

Most articles I find, and present are written from an atheist viewpoint. That is all I was noting. You've dragged in everything else. Most Darwinists are atheists.