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

by dhw, Sunday, June 16, 2024, 08:43 (158 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: More insane interpretation. God created the evolutionary system to form humans and their food resources, while setting up an Earth full of elements for human use.

dhw: And for the use of every other species that has ever lived, 99.9% of which he specially designed but then “had to cull” because they had no connection with the only species plus food that he wanted to create. When will you stop this “insane” dodging?

DAVID: I am only dodging your insane interpretation. To reach the surviving 0.1%, 99.9%m must go extinct.

But your theory is that from the very beginning, your omniscient, omnipotent God only wanted to design humans plus food, and he was perfectly capable of designing species “de novo”. You insist that he did so during the Cambrian, and these were the species from which we are descended. The question is not why the 99.9% had to go extinct, but why he designed them in the first place if he knew they would not lead to the fulfilment of his one and only purpose and he would have to cull them. Stop dodging.

DAVID: I do not consider the 99.9% as irrelevant, but necessary ancestors of the 0.1% surviving.

dhw: […] 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!

DAVID: It is wrong to use a single segment of the 99.9% whole extinct population as a valid example.

It is simply an example. As far as the whole extinct population is concerned, we dealt with that in the bolded question and answer above! You do not believe that we and our food are descended from the 99.9% of ALL CREATURES THAT EVER LIVED. You accept that we are descended from the 0.1% of CREATURES THAT SURVIVED. Stop dodging.

God’s nature

Perhaps I should preface all these discussions by emphasizing that I am not expressing beliefs. Even God's existence is 50/50 for me. I offer nothing but theories and possibilities which seem feasible to me in the light of life's history. And I criticise beliefs and/or theories which seem to me to be illogical and self-contradictory.

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

I shan’t repeat my first comment on this, as I can only repeat it in response to your next statement!

dhw: […] Please stop contradicting yourself and trying to hide behind Adler.

DAVID: I can't hide behind Adler. He taught me. All of your suggestions form a humanized God. A true God does not become bored, require experimentation to reach his goals or get excited over new inventions.

Once more: Adler tells you that whoever God is, is “up for grabs” and is a “totally unknown personage”, but apparently you know better: you actually know what a “true God” is like. Since just a few months ago, when you were certain that he enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, would be bored by an Eden, might want to be recognized and worshipped and have a relationship with us, probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions like ours, you have learned that he has none of these attributes. And although there are “as many forms of God as people who invent them”, only yours is the “true” one. Why do you think it is impossible for a creator to create something “in his own image” – i.e. sometihng with attributes like his own? Do you really believe that your God is incapable of love (a very human emotion), and that he doesn’t want to be worshipped (so we should demolish every church, synagogue and mosque)?