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

by dhw, Sunday, July 14, 2024, 11:44 (55 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] 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 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?

DAVID: 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.

You’re halfway there. Do YOU think he might have enjoyed watching our development? And can you think of any other reason why your God might have sacrificed control over humans? You went on to complain that God’s possible enjoyment “is like no other theology in existence”. I responded:
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.

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

Then your God is not their God. And a God who is but can’t be benevolent etc. etc. is “like no other theology in existence”.

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.

DAVID: Likely!!

He had no control, but so far the only reason you have given us for his sacrifice of control is that from my viewpoint he enjoyed watching our development, even though it is likely that what he was watching was a re-run of what he had already seen before it even happened. And you think enjoyment of new discoveries is a just-so story!

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.

DAVID: 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.

I can’t accept the wonder of your belief in a system which you regard as imperfect, and which makes your all-powerful, all-knowing God look ridiculous in your eyes, but which you think must have been perfect in his eyes, though you have no idea why.

DAVID: […] 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, […] 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.

DAVID: 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?

All dealt with many times, and now repeated on the “Introducing the brain” thread.