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

by dhw, Sunday, April 21, 2024, 09:01 (12 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Evolution requires a culling process, which you seem to condemn. God produced us on Earth with all of its resources at our command. Pure history.

dhw: If God exists, he made the rules, and I do not believe for one second that he would have told himself: “In order to achieve thy purpose, thou must first design and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with thy purpose.” Yes, he would have produced us in one way or another, but he also produced the other 99.9% which you can’t explain, and they are pure history too. So maybe your messy, inefficient theory about purpose and method is wrong.

DAVID: Same sick joke distorting the proper view of evolution. Repeating that point constanty does not make it a truism.

Until you can explain why your God would have deliberately, ”messily” and “inefficiently” (your description) designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to what you claim was his sole purpose, what you claim is the “proper view” of evolution will continue to be the sick joke.

DAVID: All Raup said was 0.1% are the living result!!!

dhw: Thank you. That is what I keep repeating, so stop pretending that Raup supports your wacky theory and that I am distorting Raup!

DAVID: You are distorting Raup.

I only know what you tell me, and you have told me that Raup does NOT tell us his God deliberately designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species irrelevant to his one and only purpose because that’s what he had to do. Please respond to the arguments instead of focusing on what Raup does and doesn’t say.

dhw: I have offered you three theistic purposes to explain the 99.9% (experimentation, learning process with new ideas, free-for-all), and although they explain the history, you reject them all because you they don’t fit in with your wishes.

DAVID: Yes, I want my God I wish for.

dhw: And that explains why you defend a theory which makes no sense even to you, and you reject any alternative. All credit to you for your honesty: “I first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” That is no doubt the cause of all the illogicalities and contradictions.

DAVID: it is because I make choices and you refuse to.

The reason for your illogicalities and contradictions is that you offer theories which are so illogical and contradictory that you are constantly forced to admit that only God would be able to understand them because you can’t. Examples: Your all-powerful, all-knowing designer is forced to use a messy, inefficient way of designing the only things he wants to design; your selfless God wants to be recognized and worshipped, and is all-good, although he allows human evil in order to alleviate his boredom. He is also “to blame” (your word) for natural evils, which despite his omnipotence he is powerless to prevent, although he does his best.

dhw: […] Please tell us as briefly as possible what evidence you have found, for instance, that your God is omniscient, has the same moral standards as ours, and is all-good. […].

DAVID: From biochemical design I see a massive mind.

dhw: Massive knowledge of one subject does not = total knowledge of all subjects. You have no evidence of omniscience, but it is your assumption that your wish is reality.

DAVID: My faith dictates my view reality.

You had claimed that your faith was based on evidence. Not much evidence here. I suggest that your earlier explanation was more accurate: that you “first choose a God you wish to believe in. The rest follows.”

dhw: How do you know [God] is all-good by your own standards of goodness?

DAVID: I take all-goodness as by definition.

dhw: Since nobody knows God, how can anyone possibly define his attributes with any authority? […] would you regard your God’s desire to relieve his and our boredom as “all-good” moral justification for the millions of people who have died or suffered from the evil he allowed to happen (human evil) or caused to happen (he is to blame for the natural evils)?

DAVID: Ancient Hebrew philosophy of Dayenu, it is enough, is the theodistic answer.

dhw: I didn’t realize that “dayenu” actually meant “I can’t answer your questions, so I’ll dodge them.”

DAVID: If you fully understood 'dayenu' that should not have been your response.

My response was ironic. “It is enough” is not a “theodistic answer” to my question. It is blatant dodging of my question.