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

by dhw, Wednesday, May 15, 2024, 09:29 (190 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: As usual you are lost by trying to conflate human statements about possible God traits with fact. We have no facts. My God is selfless as He creates, which means there are no motives in what He does.

dhw: Yet another straw man of your own making. Of course there are no facts. Even your God’s existence is not a fact. But YOU have offered guesses – as listed above – and now in this response, you even reject your own guesses with a statement that purports to be a fact! “My God is selfless.” And the God you have always described as purposeful has no motives, although you insist that his one and only motive for creating life was to produce us and our food, and at the end of this post you inaccurately tell me that my alternatives have “no goals in sight”!

DAVID: We do not know if God has 'motives' in our understanding of the term. I view Him as determined to produce humans and their necessary supplies of food and Earth's minerals, etc.

Yes, that is the motive you impose on him, and you refuse to consider any other.

DAVID: Your goalless God wants free-for-alls and experimentation to what end? His entertainment?

Dealt with yesterday, as follows:
dhw: I dislike the word “entertain” and prefer the terms you were certain of: that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. And as usual you pretend that enjoyment, the desire to make new discoveries, or the quest to find a particular formula, cannot count as “goals”.

DAVID: Of course, we 'want' a loving God. NOTE: Adler gives 50/50 odds that He does! That is how to think about God, not your total confusion on the subject.

dhw: It is you who start out with the God you wish for: omnipotent, omniscient, all-good, selfless. And it is you who offer guesses and then withdraw them because they clash with other guesses which you treat as facts. And it is you who cling to certain fixed beliefs which you can’t defend. If “how to think about God” means to keep an open mind, I am far closer to your theologians than you are! (See "More miscellany" for more of your "total confusion".)

DAVID: When will you realize all guesses are conditional!!

Conditional on what? Guesses are guesses, not facts. We both offer guesses, but you keep offering guesses that contradict your own guesses (e.g. he wants us to worship him, but he doesn’t because he is selfless), and then you lecture me on how to think about God!

Evolution and Raup

DAVID: The evolution comment is to answer your gross distortion of evolution by God. 99.9% of extinctions were required, per Raup.

dhw: According to your description of Raup’s argument, he just told us that for evolution to continue, there had to be changing conditions which would result in new species that would live under those conditions, and in the extinction of those that could not live under those conditions. […]

DAVID: Read Raup!!! You have totally distorted him, as I have presented him. I know him, you do not.

This is how you presented him:

DAVID (April 21st): His study was to explain why extinctions happened as a necessary part of evolution. He concluded 'bad luck'. Well-adapted species suddenly were unprepared for new circumstances. The loses cumulatively were 99.9% with 0.1% as survivors.

dhw: Yes, extinctions are necessary, as I have bolded above. You have agreed that he never mentions God, let alone your illogical theory of evolution, and “bad luck” is the exact opposite of your view of evolution as conforming to a plan. Now tell me what I have distorted.

DAVID: Exactly this: That God 'uselessly' destroyed 99.9% of all organisms when that loss is an ordinary result of the process of evolution, whether it is either a natural result of chance or by God's design.

There is a world of difference between the loss of 99.9% in a natural process governed by luck, and the deliberate creation and destruction of 99.9% in a God-controlled process with one particular purpose in the mind of the controller. Stop accusing me of distorting Raup when it is you who impose a totally different meaning on his statistics.

Humanization
DAVID: Your constant distortions of God, because you do not know how to think about Him following theological rules, leads to my rebuttals.

dhw: What rebuttals? You keep “rebutting” your own thoughts about God, but you have agreed that my logic is “impeccable”, and I’m still waiting to hear what “theological rules” force you to start with what you wish to believe and to contradict yourself over and over again, and yet forbid me to propose logically impeccable alternatives. (See “More miscellany” for your efforts to make fools of your fellow theologians.)

DAVID: Impeccable because your starting form of God wants free-for-alls and experimentation which gives the strong impression He has no goals in sight. It is all uncertainty and entertainment. An obvious humanized God.

Already answered above. And my alternatives are no more humanized than your God, who certainly enjoys creating, wants to be worshipped, is to blame for the bad bugs, messes up evolution with his inefficient design, and probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours.