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

by dhw, Wednesday, June 05, 2024, 11:13 (169 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 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?

DAVID: 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.

Then I’m delighted to say I agree with Adler, except for this silly use of the word “allegory”, when WE know the meaning of our words, and the question is whether they do or don’t apply to God. It’s clear then, that Adler would oppose your 100% declarations that your God is omnipotent, omniscient, all-good, selfless, fixated on a single purpose (us plus food), the designer of 99.9% of species irrelevant to his purpose, “certainly not human in any way”. Thank you for your integrity in finally recognizing that in fact my views are far closer to Adler’s than yours are.

dhw: according to you, [God] 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.

DAVID: 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.

You agreed long ago that “all of evolution” did not produce humans or our food. 99.9% of evolution had no connection with us and our food. “You are purposely blind” to your agreement, as follows:
dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

Hence the absurdity of your theory bolded above, and your ridicule of your God’s imperfect, inefficient method of fulfilling the purpose you impose on him.

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

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. […]I wish you'd stick to the arguments instead of hiding behind Adler.

DAVID: Not hiding behind. Trying to teach you.

And blessings upon you, my dear teacher, you have now taught me that Adler rejects all your 100% pontifications about your God’s purpose and nature. Thank you.

Evolution

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”?

No answer.

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?

DAVID: You totally humanize God, for no good reason.

The concept of an eternal, immaterial, immortal, sourceless mind can hardly be “totally human” just because it might have invented evolution as a free-for-all or a series of experiments. You impose on it a single purpose and an imperfect, inefficient method of achieving that purpose for no good reason, and indeed for no reason at all that you can think of.