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

by dhw, Sunday, June 23, 2024, 09:24 (151 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] The 99.5% loss is the natural result of any evolutionary process, as Raup showed.

dhw: What do you mean by “any”evolutionary process? We only know of one, and Raup argued that it happened “naturally”, as a result of organisms being unable to cope with changing conditions. You argue that it didn’t happen “”naturally” – that your God controlled it, deliberately designing and then having to cull the species that had no connection with his purpose.

DAVID: Yes, God preserved all lines leading the desired present populations. A proper way to state the issue.
And:
DAVID: God's choice to use this method can only mean an omniscient God picked the proper way.

Raup says luck preserved the 0.1%, and you say God preserved them, and yet you accuse me of distorting Raup. And as usual, your “proper” way conveniently omits the fact that your perfect, omniscient God designed and then had to cull all the lines that did NOT lead to present populations, and you have no idea why he would have chosen what you call such an “imperfect”, “inefficient” method to achieve the purpose you impose on him.

DAVID: Back to your out-of-control deity as humanized as ever.

dhw: A God who wants a free-for-all and gets a free-for-all or gets what he wants from his experiments cannot be dubbed out of control. And a person who insists that his God is unknowable but is certainly not human in any way cannot be dubbed rational.

DAVID: So, you conclude you know God is humanoid. Rational? Of course, not.

I don’t even conclude that your God exists. I offer you alternative theories, not conclusions. You are the only one who pretends to know God when you tell us that he is CERTAINLY not human in any way.

“Allegory”

DAVID: Adler says treat the words allegorically as applied to God. I am sure Adler knew the meaning of allegorical when he said to use it.

dhw: And so you haven’t got a clue what it means, so stop hiding behind Adler.

DAVID: It is the precise application to God that is the issue.

dhw: Correct. At last. I trust we shall never hear the word “allegorical” again.

DAVID: I'm sure we will.

You have agreed that the question is whether the terms - e.g. “wants us to worship him” - can be applied to your God or not. If you use “allegorical” again, I’ll remind you that you don’t know what it means, and have agreed that the question is whether the terms apply to your God or not.

dhw: Conclusion: We have no idea if your unknowable God does or does not have thought patterns and emotions like ours (i.e. whether such terms as love, enjoyment, selflessness, desire for recognition and worship etc. apply to him or not), and therefore it is absurd to preach that he is “certainly” not human in any way.

DAVID: The issue is God is not human but a supernatural force that designed this reality. You wish to apply human characteristics to Him. Your constant obsession with a humanized God.

If God exists, of course he is a supernatural force and not a human being, but that does not mean he can’t possibly have human characteristics. How do you KNOW that he doesn’t love us, isn’t interested in us, doesn’t enjoy creating things, doesn’t want us to worship him?

Fungi (and bacteria)

DAVID: our knowledge of the Earth's ecosystem is still growing rapidly. It is an enormously complex at many levels: “the little things that run the world” are vitally important to humans, who would not otherwise be here.

dhw: The little things are and were vitally important to every creature that ever lived.

DAVID: Exactly. Everything plays a role.

A role in what? Please tell us what role the 696 out of 700 species of extinct dinosaurs which left no descendants played in our current world.

DAVID: This answers dhw's ridiculous complaint about the 99.9% extinction rate in evolution. The necessary ecosystem variety of so many species is required for all to live. The 99.9% extinct are the direct ancestors of the now living. (dhw's bold)

dhw: Thank you for the three posts on this subject. They have absolutely nothing to do with your God’s design and having to cull the 99.9% of extinct species that had no connection with us. I quote:

dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived.

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

dhw: If we and our food are not directly descended from the 99.9%, then the 99.9% cannot have been the direct ancestors of us and our food. When will you stop contradicting yourself?

DAVID: Alternative: without the 99.9% extinct the 0.1% existing would not be here.

First you agree that they were not our direct ancestors, then you say they were our direct ancestors. But you can’t see that you are contradicting yourself. Please tell us why we and our food would not be here if your God hadn’t designed and then had to cull 696 out of 700 species of dinosaur that had no connection with us or our food.