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

by David Turell , Thursday, May 02, 2024, 19:45 (203 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The entire statistical pattern is simple! The 0.1% living are direct descendants of the 99.9%, which went extinct.

dhw: Above we are NOT directly descended from 99.9%, and now we are. The contradiction could hardly be more blatant.

Your fuzzy approach to the math statistics of extinctions is the problem. 99.9% extinctions produced 0.1% now living. Our mammal branch starts back with the dinosaurs. I don't know if our branch meets the 99.9 rate of overall extinctions, but there was a loss rate of some sort. Now look at all evolution. Each existing species had a line of descent with a rate of extinctions that combined to produce 99.9%. We mammals form a tiny living percentage of
the current living 0.1%. WE DO NOT RELATE directly to anything but mammals.

dhw: I’m combining the two evolution threads to form a coherent pattern. We have four starting points: 1) You say that I “don’t know how to think about God.” 2) DAVID to me: “Your inability to think about God as theologians do creates all sort of problems for your ability to discuss God’s attributes. 3) DAVID: “Humans simply invent the God they want. 4) DAVID: “I first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.”

dhw: This is the root cause of all your contradictions. If theologians have taught you to invent the God you want, and that is your starting point,

Theologians have NOT taught me to invent my own God!! I have chosen to follow the God of the three Western monotheistic religions as they offer His attributes. They have taught me to think about God as a 'personage like no other person'. There are rules to follow like allegorical thought which bother you so much, as just below:

dhw: you will inevitably try to twist the real world and its history into patterns that fit your preconceived plan. That is why, in your own words, you “struggle with God’s personal attributes knowing He may have none of a human kind” but also knowing that he “probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours.”

Obviously you have no understanding of the rules I was taught to follow.

dhw: Herewith more of what follows your wishful starting points:

dhw: You want humans to be your God’s one and only purpose, and you want him to be the designer of every species, and so you fight tooth and nail to avoid explaining why he would messily and inefficiently design 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose. See the above contradiction as one example of the mess you get into.

I do not WANT my God to HAVE humans as His purpose! That is a logical conclusion from the known facts about evolution as to His purpose and Adler supports me.

dhw: You want your God to be all-powerful, all-knowing and all good, and so you come up against the problem of theodicy. First of all, you say it isn’t a problem because there’s more good than bad, then you have your God allowing human evil but deliberately creating bad bugs (you blame him, but refuse to tell us why you blame him) in order to avoid getting bored, but this contradicts your wish for him to be selfless and to be all-good. At other times, he just can’t control the bugs (so that contradicts your wish for him to be all-powerful). (For more examples, see "More Miscellany".)

The theodicy standard answer is proportionality, the necessary good outweighs the side effects. Without the required 'necessary' life would not exist.

dhw: And all this time, you blame me for not knowing how theologians think about God. Today you write:

DAVID: Humans have created a huge compendium of intellectual essays in pursuit of the subject. Take Thomism, which I have studied, as a prime basic example. I find and respect much of his views.

dhw; Yes indeed. And you can pick and choose those theologians you like and pooh-pooh those you don’t. There is no ONE way to think about God, but you have settled on the view that you can invent whatever God you like, and the rest will follow. Straight into one big mess of contradictions.

Once again, your fear of choosing. Stay, neutral, don't pick sides, don't apply standards because you might create double standard. Of course, I have a chosen form of God. The contradictions are your problems as you constantly try to create a humanized God, against all the rules I follow.

dhw: You try to dodge these 1) by pretending that my criticisms stem from my agnosticism, but all our disagreements are based on your God’s possible purposes, methods and nature, not on the question of his existence, concerning which I remain neutral. 2) By attacking my alternative interpretations of evolution as “humanizations”. See the quote above concerning your “struggle with God’s personal attributes”. 3) By constantly leaving out those parts of your theories which render them illogical (e.g. the 99.9% of irrelevant species, and the fact that you blame your God for the murderous bugs, and your own guesses such as your God’s desire to be worshipped, which conflicts with your guess that he is selfless).

I ignore or skip portions of my theology?? How do you know it all, then? Your coocoo 99.9% problem fully answered above.