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

by David Turell , Monday, June 24, 2024, 19:55 (115 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You are theistically lost! DAVID: God's choice to use this method can only mean an omniscient God picked the proper way. I KNOW WHY!

dhw:Then for heaven’s sake tell us at last WHY he chose your imperfect, messy, cumbersome, inefficient method for which, in the past, you have told us that only God knows the reason!

I gave you the answer above! An all-knowing God chose this method as the best way to create.

DAVID: You are theistically lost! No one can know God's personality because it is unlike any human personality.

dhw: No one can know God’s personality because no one has ever got to know God personally! Those who claim to have had first-hand knowledge (e.g. Moses, Jesus, Muhammad) have come up with major differences, all of which entail various human attributes. Your logic is abysmal. If God is unknowable, it is totally absurd for you to tell us that he CERTAINLY does not have any human attributes. You keep repeating the same self-contradiction, but heaven be praised, we can cut this discussion short because you have performed yet another volte face on the “More Miscellany” thread, as follows:

dhw: I offer all my alternatives as theories. I don’t know if any of them are true, and I don’t even know if God exists. It is you who claim personal knowledge when you insist that your God is CERTAINLY not human in any way, which means he can’t possibly love us, enjoy creating etc. – see the other thread for a shortlist of attributes you apparently KNOW he doesn’t have.

DAVID: I have no personal knowledge as you know. Of course, He may have human-like attributes. (dhw's bold)

dhw: I shall now record this on my list of quotes, and reproduce it every time you dismiss a theory on the grounds that your God is “CERTAINLY not human in any way”. Thank you. Another red letter day in the history of the AgnosticWeb.

No!! It also means He might not have human-like attributes. That is why Adler insists upon allegorical meanings, an approach you unreasonably hate.

Fungi (and bacteria)

DAVID: Obvious, each point in time had its own whole Earth ecosystem in place, just like all living forms create today.

dhw: It is indeed obvious. So why do you keep telling us that all of those past and extinct ecosystems throughout 3+ billion years were designed (and then culled) for the sole purpose of designing and serving us and our ecosystems?

Because God's main purpose was to create us and our resources.

99.9% versus 0.1%

DAVID: […] without the 99.9% extinct the 0.1% existing would not be here.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Proper view: God maintained all lines needed for today's population of millions of species in the 0.1% surviving, all direct descendants from the 99.9% extinct.

This is becoming more and more absurd. Once again:
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: Now you turn yourself upside down and say all the survivors ARE direct descendants, and you ignore the dinosaur example we agreed on in the first place as an illustration of the percentage of species that were NOT our ancestors.

Dinosaurs are a line to birds. We were not in that line. God formed and protected the lines He wished to arrive in the present. The best way to view God's work.