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

by dhw, Monday, September 02, 2024, 11:13 (14 days ago) @ David Turell

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

dhw: 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: Why can't a non-human have human characteristics? My dog and I share some.

Thank you for once again demolishing your objections to your own proposals and mine on the grounds that your God is not human in any way. Demolition repeated here too:

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.

dhw: 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: Meaningless to you but not to Adler who made a major issue about it. What we think about God's attributes MAY NOT be how God views them.

How many more times? We want to know if he cares about us in accordance with what WE understand by “care”. Ditto all your other proposals and mine. You have agreed, but as usual, you agree and disagree with yourself over and over again with your schizophrenic beliefs.

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

dhw: 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".

DAVID: Your free-floating view of God has no basis as you constantly propose Him in a most human way.

YOU proposed that he enjoyed creating, was interested in his creations, and may have created us because he wanted a relationship with us, and wanted us to recognize and worship him. Then you rejected your own proposals on the grounds that you think your God is selfless. My alternatives to the imperfect and inefficient theory of evolution you impose on your God are based on some of the above human attributes, and as you rightly ask:”Why can’t a non-human have human characteristics?”

99.9% v 0.1%

dhw: [Raup’s] 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.

DAVID: Dinosaurs gave us birds. Do you eat chicken, goose, or turkey? Dinosaurs existed to support humans.

696 dinosaur species gave us no descendants at all. 4 dinosaur species gave us birds. How does that add up to 99.9% of dinosaur species are the ancestors of current species? And according to you, 100% of pre-Cambrian species left us no ancestors, as we are all descended from species designed “de novo” in the Cambrian.

DAVID: Your view is nonsense as the bird issue shows.

It was also your view until your Mr Hyde took over from your Dr Jekyll in his determination to make a fool of you. How can 4 out of 700 = 99.9%? Why do you keep ignoring your own agreement:
dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all the creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From 0.1% surviving.

So please stop shooting yourself in the foot.

Theodicy

dhw: 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.”

dhw: 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?

DAVID: I repeat, all the good God has given us comes with bad side effects. Does God care for us has the Adler answer of 50/50. I prefer to hope God cares.

Repeat: do you now wish to retract your theory that your God may have deliberately created these forms of evil in order to test/challenge us?