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

by David Turell , Saturday, July 13, 2024, 16:52 (131 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My 'certainty' is your invention from my guesses as to what God's attributes might be. Complete distortion.

dhw: I don’t have the original quote as the files have now gone to my archive in Austria, but you were certain because, as you quite rightly argued, he would hardly have carried on creating if he didn’t enjoy it and wasn’t interested in his creations. I’m not making this up, but it doesn’t matter anyway since I have recent quotations to hand in which you agree that your God probably/possibly has human-like attributes but certainly isn’t human in any way, which can only mean that he doesn’t have human-like attributes. I note that you have ignored your God’s deliberate sacrifice of control over the human free will you believe we have. Why do you think he gave it to us?

It was a gift related to the Big Brain. Free to act and look at our civilization now compared to the stone age. From your God's viewpoint He enjoyed watching our development.

dhw: Re other theologies, you have forgotten that deism proposes a God who sacrifices control, and process theology allows for a learning God. I do not know of any existing theology that proposes a benevolent God who can't be benevolent, a God who enjoys creating but can’t enjoy creating, who is perfectly efficient but is imperfect and inefficient, wants to be worshipped but can’t possibly want to be worshipped etc. But you claim to be in sync with "mainstream" theology while you are proud not to conform to "mainstream" theology.

No response.

I don't conform, but my God is their God. I do look at Him differently than they do.

DAVID: That He must experiment show us a God who is middling along and is not all-knowing.

dhw: There is no reason to assume that your God is all-knowing.

DAVID: Anyone who invented a universe must be all-knowing.

dhw: So even before he invented the universe, he knew all about motor cars, sang Beethoven’s 9th to himself, enjoyed a strawberry ice cream, and was painfully aware that one David Turell would one day call him an imperfect, messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer.

Likely!!

dhw: He may enjoy discovering new things, and it makes a mockery of human free will if he knows exactly what everybody is going to do (hence the controversy over predestination). Targeted experimentation is no more “middling” or “muddling” than your imperfect, messy,
cumbersome and inefficient God’s method of achieving the goal you impose on him.

DAVID: He produced us by that method!

dhw: According to you, he produced and then had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with us or our food, though we were his one and only goal. And you can’t think of a single reason why he would invent such an inefficient way of achieving the purpose you thrust upon him.

The wonder of belief you can't accept. God picked the perfect system to produce us. It may appear inefficient to us, but it was His all-knowing perfect choice. There is my reason as you ask for it.

DAVID: A great summary. But it carefully ignores my presentation of Adler's proof of God in the creation of humans by Darwin's materialistic theory. There is no reason we should be an expected result. Compared to living apes, our mobile ability and brain power were not necessary to appear. This philosophic nuance escapes your thinking. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: […] I have never denied the uniqueness of our degree of intelligence and consciousness, but we are just one piece of evidence for design out of millions, right down to the astonishing complexity of a single cell. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE, so stop dodging.

DAVID: I specifically challenged you with Adler's proof and you dodged as usual. Brain size/complexity implies a nuanced principal of how much is minimally required for survival. Why so big is flip side.

dhw: Stop changing the subject. The issue here is your God’s possible purpose, method and nature, and your Jekyll and Hyde beliefs which lead you to a messy mass of contradictions. The brain is dealt with on a separate thread.

This subject is appropriate under evolution. Why we evolved with the brain we have is not answered by Darwin theory as Adler showed. You have never directly answered that declaration.
Did our survival require the brain we have?