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

by dhw, Wednesday, June 12, 2024, 11:56 (128 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The problem is the living are the result of descendants! We are discussing surviving species for which 99.9% had to go extinct.

Of course the living are the result of descendants! The point is not that 99.9% “had to go extinct”, but that you have no idea why your God “had to” design them in the first place. But you simply refuse to consider the possibility that he deliberately designed the 99.9 because he wanted to – and I have offered you three alternative theories to explain why he might have wanted to design them or to enable them to design themselves. The rest of your post on this subject is your usual dodge of presenting obvious truths which do not in any way support your wacky theory:

DAVID: You cannot separate the past from the present. [Agreed.] Evolution is a study of descendancy. [Agreed.] Our species, in which you and I live, had a large multiple of forms that finally formed us. [Agreed.] Yes, we descended from our parents as part of the 0.1% of currently living forms. [Agreed.] "From the 0.1% surviving" is much more complicated than the meaning you give it.

The meaning could not be clearer. We plus food are not descended from 99.9% of all the creatures that ever lived. We plus food are descended from the 0.1% of species that survived past extinctions, as you keep agreeing and then disagreeing. Example: 696 species of dinosaurs left no descendants, 4 left descendants (birds).

Evolution

dhw (re “allegory”): You have accepted that it is not the meaning of the words that is in question, but their applicability to your God.

DAVID: Finally you understand.

dhw: No, finally YOU understood, and now back you go to not understanding.

dhw: And this is what keeps happening. A string of contradictions, and agreements which a few days later turn into yourself disagreeing with yourself.
There is no need for me to repeat the list of examples.

DAVID: Again, flushing up quotes out of context. The bolds I created are correct views of mine about God.

dhw: If you tell us that your God might want us to worship him, enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions like ours etc. there is no conceivable context other than his possible wishes and nature. And if you follow your beloved Adler’s pronouncements that your God is “all–everything”, and there is a 50/50 chance that he might listen to us and care for us, then it is doubly absurd for you to reject all your earlier proposals.

DAVID: I have not rejected, I am trying to educate you to Adler's instructions as to 'how to think about God'.

Our discussion should not be about what Adler did or didn’t believe but about the arguments you are producing, and the multiple contradictions you keep repeating.

DAVID: My earlier guesses about God's wishes or intentions are simply guesses with an intended allegorically meaning for God.

There is no “allegorical” meaning, as you agreed above (bolded).

DAVID: I initially worked from memory, but recently have pulled that book out and reviewed His instructions. From Adler's view in 'The Difference of Man and..." humans were God's prime purpose in evolution!” I fully accept that.

I know you do. Now please give us Adler’s explanation of why your God imperfectly and inefficiently “had to” design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species he never wanted in the first place.

DAVID: 'All everything' refers to the usual list of God's powers.

The expression is ridiculous if it doesn’t cover your God’s possible nature – but see the closing comment, which demolishes all your arguments.

DAVID: Adler never touches on theodicy even if his view of God raises that issue.

An extraordinary omission from someone who is telling us how to think about God. It can only mean that when we/you think about God, we/you shouldn’t think about anything Adler/you don’t want us to think about.

DAVID: We are left with an all-powerful personage with no knowledge of His reasoning or intentions other than the above. There is no way He can be humanized.

Is this you or Adler speaking? Why must we accept your concrete pronouncement that your God’s one and only purpose was to produce us plus food? (“Prime” leaves room for other purposes, but you can never think of any.) When Adler said there is a 50/50 chance that God cares for us, doesn’t that mean that the “humanized” concept of caring for others is 50% possible?
All of this is shown in its true light with your comment at the end of the more “miscellany” thread, as follows:

DAVID: A purposeful God created humans. The many forms come from a major problem. Whoever God is, is up for grabs. We are faced with a totally unknown personage.

You’re right about the major problem. (Does Adler agree that his God is an imperfect and inefficient designer?) “Whoever God is, is up for grabs….totally unknown personage” completely demolishes your assumption that he cannot possibly have any of the “humanized” traits you originally suggested he might have. Your certainty is the result of your own preconceptions – you start with the God you “wish to believe in”. And you tell us that this is how we should think about God!