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

by David Turell , Sunday, June 16, 2024, 18:29 (158 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: 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.

Your imagined God you create for me ignores His ability for direct creation. Why? God has the right to choose any method He wishes to use at any point in time. Since I believe God created the historical evolutionary record we have, His assumed reasoning must fit that record. That makes it logical to assume God both direct creates and also evolves as He wishes, for His own reasons. My entry today on brain structure is from His evolution and demonstrates that we were His purpose, as Adler proposed in his proof of God.

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.

dhw: 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.

I only object to your throwing out the 99.9% as pointless.

God’s nature

dhw: 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.

Accepted.

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.

dhw: 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.

All of my 'certainty' in your mind were opinions of guessing about God. He may or may not have those feelings.

dhw: 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)?

Of course, it is possible God loves us, for Adler it is 50/50! God is what any person wishes to believe. I have mine. What I accept as fact is, if there is a God, He wished to create us and give us a perfect planet on which to live.