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

by David Turell , Tuesday, June 18, 2024, 20:49 (156 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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?

Crazy request!! I can't think like God. God had his reasons. Why keep repeating this???

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.

dhw: 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.

What human way would you make Him!? We already know.

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

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

dhw: 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.

Ther is nothing illogical about faith in God. But not your overly humanized God

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.

dhw; 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.

dhw: 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.

The allegorical meaning is not here but at the God level. Allegorically, God MAY have thought patterns like ours and similar emotions. Nothing is categorical in reference to God.