Return to David's theory of theodicy;Plantinga & Raup (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, May 01, 2024, 12:07 (204 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: If you now agree that your omniscient and omnipotent God wished to create a vast variety of forms extant and extinct, then quite clearly his one and only motive could not have been to create just the 0.1% which led to our current bush of life. [David's red]

DAVID: Yes, evolution is much messier than direct creation, BUT God chose to evolve us! The red quote is your usual twist. Your usual distain for human exceptionalism defines your response.

dhw: I have always acknowledged our exceptional powers.

DAVID: Yes, grudgingly up to a point, when I force you. Adler uses those human powers to prove God! Way beyond your usual approach.

There is nothing “grudging”about it, and our dispute – for the thousandth time – is not about Adler’s evidence for God’s existence but about your illogical, messy theories concerning your God’s purposes (as in the red above), methods and nature. Will you please stop dodging!

DAVID: God's purpose was to produce us, not as distorted by your weird take of Raup's statistical analysis of evolutionary extinctions. A required death of 99.9% produced all the 0.1% survivors now. Exactly as God planned: over eight billion dominant humans using all of the resources of the Earth. Nothing culled for no reason! Your reasoning is as woolly as ever.

The death of the 99.9% did not produce anything! It is the 0.1% of survivors who produced the current bush. Why do you keep ignoring your agreement. Listen to yourself!

DAVID: All species produced were relevant to current ecosystems of the time in evolution.

They were NOT relevant to the current bush!

dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

It is therefore patently absurd to argue that the extinct 99.9% “produced” the current 0.1%. We and our food are descended from the 0.1% of species that survived extinction (or what you call your God’s “culling”). Example: a tiny proportion of dinosaurs led to birds. The rest did not lead to any life forms now on Earth.

Double standards

DAVID:I follow theistic thinking as presented by several sources. I have never found the sort of God you describe in any of it.

dhw: I pointed out to you that the sort of God I was describing was to be found in process and deist theologies. You replied:

DAVID: Process and deist theologies are not mainstream, and not worth using. My view of God is mine, and just as valid as as any other.

dhw: This statement entails double standards, because your own view is equally non-mainstream. If you had given us a different reason for rejecting process and deist theologies, you would not have been using double standards.

DAVID: That they are not mainstream is factual. But I've told you, please remember, I've studied both in detail, and still reject them. There is your acceptable reasoning.

It is hardly acceptable reasoning to say you have studied them and rejected them, but if you had said that, instead of saying you rejected them because they were not mainstream, you would only have been guilty of a non-argument. You would not have been guilty of double standards. You seem to have understood the term now, and we can skip the silly ad hominems at the end of your post.