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

by dhw, Saturday, September 14, 2024, 09:25 (5 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I start with a definite type of God I want.

dhw: Thank you for repeating this confession. You could hardly have a less scientific, less logical, less defensible approach, since you have already decided the result even before you have considered the evidence![/b]

DAVID: All the questionable evidence is secondary for a supernatural entity.

An atheist would say that all the evidence for a supernatural entity is questionable, and I’m sorry, but your response is no answer to my now bolded comment.

God and human attributes

DAVID: Certainly, we mimic Him in unknown ways.

I like the word “certainly”. You are certain that he is “benevolent” but not “malevolent”, and you were once certain that he enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, and you even thought it was possible that he wanted us to recognize and worship him. But then you disagreed with yourself, because you think your God is selfless. And you offer us a theory of evolution which you regard as imperfect and inefficient, but you dismiss efficient alternatives on the grounds that although your God “certainly” shares some of his attributes with us, he can’t possibly share any attributes with us because he is not human in any way.

dhw: Either your God cares or he doesn’t, wants us to worship him or doesn’t, enjoys designing or doesn’t - all according to what we understand by those terms.

DAVID: Agreed using my proviso from Adler.

There is no proviso, since you agree that it is all “according to what we understand by those terms”. If Adler says there is a 50/50 chance that God cares for us, does he then question whether the word “care” has a different meaning for God than the meaning it has for us?

99.9% v 0.1%

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: You agree we are NOT descended from the 99.9% of extinct species but only from the 0.1% survivors of each extinction, but you insist that we ARE descended from the 99.9% of extinct species, which “produced” us although they had no descendants!

DAVID: Of course they had descendants - as you agree:

dhw: Only 0.1% - the survivors of each extinction - “produced” us. The two examples based on your own beliefs CONFIRM Raup’s overall statistics (you say 100% of pre-Cambrian species were not our ancestors, and we know that 99.4% of dinosaurs were not our ancestors). Why do you reject your own examples, which confirm Raup’s statistics?

How on earth do you manage to interpret this as my agreement? How do you “make descendants” once you have become extinct? After each extinction, it is the 0.1% of survivors that “make descendants” (until they themselves go extinct, and the next 0.1% of survivors take over).

DAVID: See todays' entry re distorted dinosaur statistics.

The new theory does not even touch on the percentage of dinosaurs that did or didn’t produce descendants. It simply challenges the belief that theropods were the ancestors. Do you really think the new theory is that 696 dinosaur species were our ancestors? And don’t forget your 100% non-ancestral pre-Cambrians.

DAVID: The 99.9% produced nothing? Your inconsistency is appalling.

We are talking about your theory that your God designed and had to cull 99.9% of species in order to produce us and our food. Yet again: I asked. “Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all the creatures that ever lived? You replied: No. From 0.1% surviving. And now you want us to believe that we and our food are descended from the 99.9%, and you accuse me of inconsistency!

Theodicy

DAVID: An all-powerful God does not need to experiment. Life's biochemistry, invented by God, will have errors since the molecules are free acting as they follow directions.

dhw: An all-powerful God would not need help to correct mistakes he is unable to correct!!!
And how can molecules be free acting if they follow directions?

DAVID: Exactly! Free-floating following instructions BUT then free to make a mistake!!!

Unless their instructions are to feel free to make a mistake, your comment makes no sense.

Under “Editing DNA mistakes” and “Bacterial intelligence”

DAVID: Why would a benevolent God deliberately create the chaos of a murderous free-for-all?

dhw: Since you can hardly deny that your murderous bacteria, viruses and humans exist, please answer your own question, which is precisely the subject of theodicy! Meanwhile, why do you assume your God is benevolent? Your answer: “I start with a definite type of God I want.” If atheists told you they started with what they wanted, you would tear them to pieces!

DAVID: They want no God and pure chance. Makes no sense, while a God who designs does so even if His designs have problems.

As does the theory of his existence, and even more problems are thrown up when someone starts off with the conclusions he wants and refuses to consider any other possibility.