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

by dhw, Friday, June 14, 2024, 10:45 (160 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Of course, He designed the 99.9% because He wanted to! Where did you get that insane idea? He developed His goal stepwise.

dhw: Because you have the insane idea that he had to, and he also had to cull them because they were NOT steps towards his one and only goal, and that is why you have the insane idea than a perfect, omnipotent and omniscient God would choose an imperfect and inefficient method to fulfil the one and only purpose you impose on him.

DAVID: Not had to, wished to! Your insane interpretation continues ad nauseum.

This dispute goes way back, and is summed up by an exchange last November, which I specially noted:

dhw: Why can’t you accept that for whatever reasons, he wished to create (whether directly or indirectly) the vast variety of forms extant and extinct, as opposed to being forced by the system he invented to create and cull forms he didn’t want? (Please don’t make me list the quotes in which you say he “had to do” it that way.)

DAVID: The ‘had to’ refers to required culling over millions of years.

You have continued to emphasize what was “required” (e.g. last week: “The 0.1/% required the 99.9% to go extinct” – blithely overlooking the fact that your theory has your God designing the 99.9% in the first place), at one stage even suggesting that your God “inherited” the system. The “insane” interpretation, however, is now that your God only wished to create us plus food and so he wished to create and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that would have no connection with his one and only purpose.

Dhw: When I asked: “Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?” you replied: “No. From the 0.1% surviving.”
In yesterday’s post you wrote: “A purposeful God created humans. The many forms come from a major problem.” What is the major problem and why do you call your perfect God’s method “imperfect” and “inefficient”if you’re not referring to the 99.9% of irrelevant species?

DAVID: Misprint, sorry!' Correct: "The many forms create a major problem in identifying who God is". I do not consider the 99.9% as irrelevant, but necessary ancestors of the 0.1% surviving.

That is doubly absurd. Firstly, you went on to say that “Whoever God is, is up for grabs. We are faced with a totally unknown personage.” That is the reason why he is unidentifiable. Secondly, if 696 out of 700 species of dinosaur did not produce any descendants, how could they have been the necessary ancestors of the species that survived? (Yet again: dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from the 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived? DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.) Please stop disagreeing with yourself!

Evolution

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

dhw: There is no “allegorical” meaning...

DAVID: Applied to God they are, not to us.

dhw: We invented the word “worship”, and we know what it means: to show our respect, admiration, love etc. The question is not whether the word means something different to God but whether he does or doesn’t want us to show our respect, admiration, love etc.

DAVID: You have again avoided accepting allegorical for the word worship.!!! The question is definitely whether it means the same thing to God as we mean it!!!

You have completely ignored (a) what I have just explained above, and (b) the following exchange:

dhw: 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.

No, finally YOU understood, and now you go sliding back to the absurdity of your God challenging the meaning of the word we invented. Please stop disagreeing with yourself.

DAVID: […] Whoever God is, is up for grabs. We are faced with a totally unknown personage.

dhw: […] if whoever God is, is up for grabs, how can you reject the possibility that he has thought patterns and emotions like ours, enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, might want to relieve boredom, might like to experiment? You have every right to invent your own form of God, but it is not up to you to decide what a “totally unknown personage” can or cannot be, want, or do.

DAVID: I didn't decide: Adler told me how he did it.

Please stop hiding behind Adler and answer my question.