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

by dhw, Sunday, September 01, 2024, 11:33 (81 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I know what selflessness means. But when you suggested that your God enjoyed creating, was interested in his creations, and might want us to recognize and worship him, you knew exactly what you meant, and you were proposing that he might have attributes which are NOT SELFLESS. This contradicts your belief that he is selfless and therefore they CANNOT apply to him. Hence your confession that your beliefs are “schizophrenic”.

DAVID: I stick to my principles. I may propose but with the qualifications as above! Not schizophrenic.

You have made the above proposals, agreed that “of course” He may have human attributes, and then tell us that he is not human in any way, which means your proposals must be wrong although they may be right. Not schizophrenic?

DAVID: As I view God there are no contradictions. I start with the rigid principle; God is not human in any way. Do we reflect Him in some ways? Possibly.

dhw: If he is not human in any way, how can we possibly reflect him in some ways???

DAVID: Allegorically.

The term is meaningless. You only want to know if he does or does not have the attributes you propose. If his idea of caring, enjoying, worship etc. is different from yours, then he does not have the attributes you propose.

DAVID: Does He care about us? 50/50.

dhw: But you have stated categorically that you reject deism because “God made us. He must care about the results." That = 100% he cares. And above you say he is not human in any way, but caring is a human attribute, in which case you say he must be 100% non-caring.

DAVID: All picking at guesswork. I answer, you pick, pick. I can't ask you, because you are empty.

You can’t answer me because you keep contradicting yourself, even to the extent of confessing that your views are schizophrenic but they are not schizophrenic. I have no idea why you think this makes me “empty”!

99.9% v 0.1%

DAVID: Nonsense! We are part of the current 0.1% surviving. Our great-grand parents are in the 99.9% extinct.

dhw: Our great-grandparents are dead, but our species is still going strong, and is directly descended from the 0.1% of species that survived Raup’s extinctions. The 99.9% of extinct species includes those of our ancestral species (e.g. all the hominids and homos) that have disappeared. Are you still pretending that 696 dinosaur species which had no descendants are our ancestors?

DAVID: Part of a group of the extinct. You can't torture Raup's 99.9% and 0.1% into a sliver of dinos. His are overall statistics to be understood as he did.

His statistics are simple: 99.9% of species became extinct, and only 0.1% survived. You have now told us explicitly that every life form for 3,000,000,000 years before the Cambrian had no connection with us and our food, and you can’t deny that 696 dinosaur species out of 700 also had no connection with us and our food. You have also agreed explicitly that 99.9% of creatures that ever lived were NOT our ancestors – we are descended only from the 0.1% of survivors. Must I keep quoting you? Please stop this nonsense!

Theodicy

From today’s Sunday Times: “A study in the Lancet medical journal found there were 4.95 million deaths in 2019 linked to drug-resistant bacterial infections worldwide, of which 1.278 million were directly attributable to superbugs.”

You have stated that their existence is God’s “fault”, and theorized that he may have designed them as a test or challenge to us humans. I’ll repeat the so far unanswered question: how and why would a caring, all-good God (you have rejected deism because your God “must care about the results” of creating us) want to test or challenge us by deliberately creating these weapons of mass destruction? Or do you now wish to retract this theory?