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

by David Turell , Tuesday, June 04, 2024, 21:37 (170 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: To clear the point: When God produced us it was not out of a wish that we worship Him. Adler's 50/50 applies here as a neutral opinion.. […] Adler's position is a neutral 'we cannot know'. Adler treats God as selfless.

dhw: I agree with Adler: we cannot know. You insist that you do know: 100% God has no self-interest. What do you mean by “treats God as selfless”? Does Adler say explicitly that his God is selfless?

I've been working from memory. In his book directly: there is no rational necessity for God to be morally good, just or merciful. or even benevolently disposed toward us. Allegory must always be used for words about God. Divine inscrutability precludes us from ever asking the reason why God does anything. God is no way necessitated to create the universe and must be considered as acting freely. I've interpreted him based on these thoughts basically quoted.

DAVID: In Adler's other book he uses Darwinian evolution producing humans to prove God. Like me he assumes God ran evolution.

dhw: If God exists, he produced humans and every other species by evolution, and you can regard the complexities of every species as evidence of design. You can also assume he “ran” evolution, but the term is wide open to interpretation: he could have run it as a free-for-all, as an experiment to create something in his own image, or as an experiment to create interesting new things. Or according to you, he ran evolution by being forced to design and cull 99.9 of 100 species that he didn’t want, because (in a couple of your posts) he inherited a rule that told him what he must do.

God wanted all of evolution as it happened, because it produced all of the organisms humans can use. You are purposely blind to this purpose.

DAVID: You rail at Adler with tiny knowledge of him.

c dhw: I don’t rail at Adler, but against your illogical arguments which you tell us are based on Adler even when they aren't: e.g. Adler’s 50/50 possible against your 100% impossible; Adler’s “proof” of God’s existence because of humans, without any support for your bolded, wacky theory of evolution; Adler as the only acceptable guide on how to think about God, thereby ignoring every other “invention” of God by other theologians who, like everyone else, have no qualifications whatsoever to tell anyone how to think about God, since only God can possibly know how to think about God. And I wish you'd stick to the arguments instead of hiding behind Adler.

Not hiding behind. Trying to teach you.

Evolution

DAVID: […] Everything in creation is God's work. Therefore, He evolved us by that cumbersome method we see. It was His choice to do it that way for His own reasons. Makes perfect sense to me if not to you.

dhw: It makes perfect sense if you leave out the problem which causes you to ridicule his method as messy, cumbersome and inefficient […]

DAVID: Again, your distorted way of analyzing evolution by God. The unusual human endpoint is pure evidence of God's intent as creator using an evolutionary method.

dhw: If God exists, the whole history of life is pure evidence that he used an evolutionary method. It is not pure evidence of the totally illogical theory bolded above. When will you stop dodging?

DAVID: You are the dodger by creating a false analysis of Raup's statistics.

dhw: Nothing whatsoever to do with Raup’s statistics, which you tell us are that 99.9% of species have not survived. His “analysis” is that this is due to changing conditions leading to extinctions, ... and survival depends on luck. […]. You admit that he does NOT tell us God was obeying some law that in order for him to produce us, he must specially design the 99.9% of species irrelevant to us. Stop distorting Raup.

DAVID: If God's purpose was to produce us and all the living resources on Earth, everything that happened was required. Raup fits in just fine.

dhw: Why were 99.9% of extinct species that had no connection with us or our contemporary species necessary for the production of us and our contemporary species? Ah, because your God is an imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer, although he’s also perfect, omniscient and omnipotent. Where does Raup, who never mentions God, “fit in just fine”?

DAVID: Your alternative views of God's evolution turn it into a goal-less free-for-all for God's entertainment.

dhw: You keep repeating this mantra. 1) I have rejected the superficial term “entertainment”, in favour of your own words “enjoyment” and “interest”; 2) the free-for-all is one of three theistic alternatives that I offer, and 3) none of my alternatives are “goal-less”.

DAVID: I offer a human's analysis of God's method.

dhw: And of God’s purpose. So why do you stick to your human conclusion that your perfect, omniscient and omnipotent God is an imperfect, inefficient designer, and yet you dismiss my human proposals that he does exactly what he wants to do, and efficiently produces exactly what he wants to produce?

You totally humanize God, for no good reason.