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

by dhw, Tuesday, June 18, 2024, 11:19 (156 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: If I make God the designer, I must have Him follow the history of evolution. He did exactly what He wished and made humans. All quite logical.

But the history of evolution, according to you, entailed God designing and then having to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with humans plus food, although according to you, humans plus food were his one and only purpose and he was perfectly capable of directly designing “de novo” whatever species he wished to design. Why would he choose such an “imperfect” and “inefficient” means of fulfilling the purpose you impose on him? You can’t think of a single reason. When will you stop dodging?

DAVID: 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.

dhw: The unique complexity of our brain demonstrates nothing more than the fact that our brain is uniquely complex. It does not explain why your God had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species irrelevant to us. A dog’s nose is at least 1000 times more sensitive to smell than ours. What does that prove or "demonstrate"? The argument is not about proof of your God’s existence but about his purpose, method and nature. Stop dodging.

DAVID: It is your dodge to downplay our brain, the most unique object in the universe. Nature cannot make this brain. We are the purpose of God's evolution. God's nature is unknown and not in any way human.

I have not downplayed our brain. But yet again: if we were THE purpose, why did he design and then have to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his purpose? And if God’s nature is unknown, it is totally absurd to insist that he is not in any way human! We don’t know! Stop shooting yourself in the foot.

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

dhw: Now that you have at last and yet again agreed that we are not descended from the 99.9%, do please tell us the “point” of your omniscient God deliberately creating them, though he knew he would have to cull them. I’ll help you: you can’t tell us. Only your perfect, omniscient God knows why he would choose the imperfect, messy, cumbersome, inefficient combination of purpose and method you have invented and imposed on him.

DAVID: What is wrong with accepting God as you describe Him? I do, with no discomfort like yours.

This is as YOU describe him, and what is wrong is that it makes no sense to argue that a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent God who is able to do whatever he wishes to do, is an imperfect, inefficient designer. There are logical, alternative theistic explanations for the existence and extinction of the 99.9%, but you can’t bear to even contemplate the possibility that your illogical theory might be wrong.

God’s nature

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

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

dhw: After proposing that he had them, you then said he certainly didn’t have them. Thank you for at last agreeing that he may or may not have those feelings. I shall note this agreement next time you insist that he is “certainly not human in any way”.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: A pretty good summary of the agnostic position, except that if he exists, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that he also wished to create the 99.9 out of 100 extinct species that had no connection with us. Hence your illogical theory of evolution and my alternative theistic explanations, involving certain human thought patterns and emotions which at long last you once more agree he may or may not have.

DAVID: Your usual ploy. In my view evolution by God must be the same evolution Raup described with 99.9% now extinct.

What ploy? I agree.

DAVID: God's possible feelings are what we can imagine from our own living experience but that does not make them true for God. They must remain allergically possible, nothing more.

The word “allegorically” has no meaning here, as you agreed earlier. We can only imagine God’s possible feelings, and your statement that he may or may not have those feelings is a direct contradiction of your statement that he is certainly not human in any way. It is possible, as you yourself have stated categorically, that he has thought patterns and emotions like ours. Stop disagreeing with yourself.