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

by dhw, Thursday, September 26, 2024, 10:46 (22 days ago) @ David Turell

Schools of theology

DAVID: No schools think as I do.

dhw: From following several schools of theological thought in March, you have now rejected them all! Next you accuse me of ignoring schools of theological thought although I have already named two [deism and process theology] which you have dismissed, as if not being mainstream disqualified them. But no schools think as you do, so why don't you dismiss your thoughts as not being mainstream? You have acknowledged that your approach to God is schizophrenic, but you also claim that you never contradict yourself. […]

DAVID: Having been given guidelines as to how to think about God. I follow them and what I have presented is the result. I'm not preaching it for any group but myself. I see no contradictions in the sort of God I present as purposeful, selfless, and all-everything as in the way Western religions describe Him.

You present the same God described by Western schools of thought (religions), but no schools of thought think as you do? No contradiction? You offer a theory of evolution which ridicules your perfect God for his imperfect design; you think he probably has human-like attributes but is not human in any way; you think he enjoys creating and may want us to recognize and worship him, but he doesn’t because he’s selfless; your God is benevolent, but he can’t be benevolent as he’s not human in any way, but there is a 50/50 chance that he is benevolent. See above for your equally confused and confusing double standards. You’re right: I know of no school of theological thought as “schizophrenic” as yours.

Humanization

DAVID: My non-human God can be compared to my dog in the sense that non-human individuals can logically have human-like attributes without in any way be human.

dhw: If they have human-like attributes, they are like humans in those particular ways, but that does not mean your dog or your God is human. For instance, your beliefs that your God is benevolent, or might enjoy creating, or might want to be recognized and worshipped, are all human-like attributes but they do not “humanize” him, any more than your dog’s love for you and desire to be loved by you make him a human being.

DAVID: We agree here.

So please stop all this nonsense about my alternative theories “humanizing” God.

99.9% v 0.1%

DAVID: Of course, we are part of the surviving 0.1% which descended from the 99.9% now extinct.

dhw: Please explain why you were insane when you agreed that we are only descended from the 0.1% of survivors? Please explain why, as part of what you call the statistics of “all species lumped together”, we should ignore your own theory that 100% of pre-Cambrian species were not our ancestors, and 99.43% (or possibly 100%) of dinosaurs were not our ancestors.

DAVID: You are so confused about Raup. The 99.9% extinct and the 0.1% now living are all of evolution lumped together in one overall statistical description of all of evolution. Of course, pre-Cambrian forms are part of our ancestors, not your nutty interpretation of my presentations. Forget dinosaurs!!! I'm not slicing up evolution as you do. Raup's estimate is an overall look.

Of course it is. He doesn’t even discuss the question of ancestry. It’s you who try to twist his statistics to fit your theory that your God had to design the 99.9% of species which he then had to cull because they were irrelevant to his one and only purpose (us and our food). But common sense prevailed when you agreed that only the survivors of the different extinctions (Raup’s “slices”) could have gone on to be our ancestors. Now please tell us why you reject your own pre-Cambrian theory (our ancestors were created “de novo”, so 100% of pre-Cambrian species were non-ancestral), and the dinosaur example (99.43% non-ancestral), and why you were insane when you agreed that we are descended from the 0.1% of survivors and not the 99.9% of the species that became extinct.

Theodicy

DAVID: We go round and round as you ae unwilling to accept my reasoning about theodicy issues. No point in continuing to constantly be giving you the same answers I've presented previously. We must accept the style of life we have. There is none other than God could provide.

We go round and round because you keep repeating different explanations, none of which make sense if your God is all-powerful, all-good and all-knowing. Of course we must accept the existence of evil. Our discussion concerns your God’s nature!

DAVID: I look at God as presenting a challenging form of life. We have the God-given brains for it.

dhw: Now you’ve gone back to the challenge or test theory, which suggests the deliberate creation of evil to see if we could conquer it with our brains. And somehow that is meant to confirm that your God is all-powerful and all-good.

DAVID: Only an all-powerful could create life. Anything evil is a side effect.

So now you discard the challenge theory, the boredom theory, the fact that you blame God for natural disasters and murderous bugs (not to mention murderous humans), and his reliance on us to cure what he can’t cure….Evil is only a side effect, so let’s ignore it.