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

by David Turell , Tuesday, September 10, 2024, 19:47 (72 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Remember Adler's 50/50. God may be a creator without emotions. Your constant humanizing of God confuses your attempt at logic about God.

dhw: Adler’s 50/50 is an agreement that your God may have attributes like ours. The above proposals (enjoyment, interest, recognition, worship) were YOUR humanizations of your God, and I find them perfectly feasible. However, you reject them on the grounds that your God is not human in any way (= he can’t have attributes like ours) and is selfless.

DAVID: The 50/50 means also 'may not'. In my view God creates with no requirements attached.

dhw: Who is talking about “requirements”? 50/50 means he may or may not have the attributes listed above. But your schizophrenic self insists that your God has none of them because he is not human in any way, and you wish him to be selflesss.

50/50 only relates to whether God cares or not. We each imagine God, so as to my personal God, He is selfless and not human in any way.

99.9% v 0.1%

DAVID: The 99.9% extinct species produced the 0.1% now living.

dhw: Let me repeat the unequivocal statement you keep forgetting:

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.

dhw: Please tell us how the 99.9% could have “produced” us if we are only descended from the 0.1% that survived.

DAVID: We are part of the 99.9% past organisms since we are living in the 0.1% survivor groups. From Raup's lumped statistics.

dhw: Again: How can we be part of the 99.9% of organisms from which, according to your own statement, we are NOT descended? Please stop dragging this out. If you now believe that we are descended from 99.9% of all the creatures that ever lived, then please tell us you made a mistake when you wrote “No. From 0.1% surviving”, and you actually meant yes. While you’re at it, you’d better tell us that your God did not create our ancestors “de novo” during the Cambrian because you believe we are descended from 99.9% of pre-Cambrian species. And maybe also repeat your belief that the 4 out of 700 dinosaur species that were ancestors of current species = 99.9% of dinosaurs.

Per Raup: 99.9% extinct resulted in the current 0.1% surviving. We are among the 0.1% as representatives of the surviving. Specific dinosaurs are beside the point and worthless examples of the total lumped statistics.

Theodicy

dhw: please explain why you think your God wanted to test us.

DAVID: […] If God tried to change the freedom of action of molecules life could not exist, as explained before. Of course He needs our help.

dhw: So he did not create the baddies in order to test us. Exit the testing theory, and enter the theory of an omnipotent, omniscient God who can’t cope with the evil he couldn’t avoid creating, and is relying on us to do what he can’t do.

DAVID: God can't 'do it' because life won't work without molecules free to act. You always avoid this point.

dhw: So are you now withdrawing your “test/challenge” theory in favour of the new theory that your omniscient, omnipotent God needed our help?

He gave us brains that can work with Him. Challenge and help both fit.

Editing DNA mistakes

DAVID: […]. My view is God clearly recognized the need for editing when the molecules were necessarily free and uncontrolled in their actions as they followed the given instructions. The article clearly shows the level of mistakes. (15 to 50%)

dhw: How could they be free and uncontrolled if they followed the given instructions??? The whole point is that 15%-50% didn’t follow instructions, and your God tried hard to “edit” or correct the mistakes, but he apparently needs our help because he can’t stop them despite his omnipotence and omniscience.

DAVID: The molecules have instructions but no tight controls, a point you don't understand.

dhw: So some of them choose to follow God’s instructions, and some of them choose not to do so. They all have minds of their own. I get it. God needs our help to deal with the rebels.

No rebellion. They make mistakes in action, not meaning to. You are getting closer to understanding.

DAVID: (under “bacterial intelligence) […] Good bacteria in the wrong places are bad.

dhw: I don’t know why you think bacteria which kill us are good bacteria obeying your God’s instructions which prove lethal because your God didn’t tell them where to go. […]

dhw: My proposal is that all bacteria, whether we call them good or bad, have the ability to design their own means of survival. And (back to “theodicy”) you are now telling us that your God knew what the so-called baddies would do but couldn’t stop them. No deliberate test or challenge. Just an all-powerful God needing help.

The 'bad' bacteria may be 'good' but stumble into the wrong places. And then God needs help.