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

by dhw, Tuesday, June 25, 2024, 11:33 (75 days ago) @ David Turell

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!

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

God chose what you call this “imperfect” and “inefficient” method of deliberately designing and having to cull 99.9 out of 100 species irrelevant to the creation of the only species he wanted to create (us and our food) because that was the best way to do it, even though he was perfectly capable of directly creating any species he wanted (as per Cambrian). Ah well, carry on ridiculing him, if that’s what your theology teaches you.

Human attributes

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.

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.

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

We’ve dealt with “allegorical” – you have confessed that you have no idea what Adler meant by it, so please stop resorting to it. The above alternative is correct: either he has human attributes or he doesn’t. He wants to be worshipped or he doesn't. He loves us or he doesn't. We have no way of knowing the truth. It is therefore utterly absurd to say that he “certainly isn’t human in any way” but “of course, he may have human-like attributes”. You are twisting yourself in knots, all for the sake of defending a theory in which you ridicule your perfect God as being an imperfect and inefficient designer.

dhw: (under “More Miscellany”): You reject all my theistic alternatives as “humanizing”, but now that you agree your God may have human-like attributes, you have no reason to reject them [...].

DAVID: I have my God and you have your humanized form. No change in positions.

You can no longer reject my alternative theistic theories on the grounds that they involve human-like attributes. You are of course welcome to stick to the inefficient God you wish to believe in.

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?

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

“Main”? You have been unable to give us any other purposes, and it is once more utterly absurd to assume that your God specially designed every ecosystem for the last 3.8 billion years for the sole purpose of creating us and our resources.

99.9% versus 0.1%

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: 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.

4 out of 700 species of dinosaurs led to current species (birds), and 696 did not. 696 were NOT our direct ancestors, as you have agreed. If they were not the direct ancestors of current species, how can current species be their direct descendants? Please stop shooting yourself in the foot.