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

by dhw, Thursday, October 03, 2024, 09:16 (15 days ago) @ David Turell

Contradictions

dhw (under “disordered proteins”) Why do you think [your God] is still interested enough to keep watching?

DAVID: Don’t you maintain interest in your creations?

See below.

DAVID (on this thread): Can a selfless God 'want' worship? He may like it, but does not need it to satisfy Himself. […]

dhw: […] We’re not talking of need. If he wants to be worshipped, you can hardly call him selfless.
And:
DAVID (under “early mammalian evolution”) God is not driven by self-needs. He simply creates.

dhw: You keep yammering on about “need”. You agree that he not only creates but is interested in his creations. Why do you think it is illogical for a God to enjoy creating and be interested in what he creates, rather than to create zombie-like without any feelings at all about what he is doing?

DAVID: We do not know how God feels about Himself, and He likely has no feelings. Back to Adler's 50/50.

Adler’s 50/50 does not mean he likely has no feelings; it means he may or may not have them. And in any case you’ve told us this applied only to whether your God cares for us. According to you, he is “benevolent”, which = 100% he cares for us. Now please explain why it is illogical to assume that if God is interested in his creations (as you say he is), he might have created them because he wanted to create something that would interest him, and if he may like us to worship him (as you say he may), he might have created us because he wanted us to worship him. And do you agree that these possible motives are not selfless?

99.9% v 0.1%

DAVID: Stop slicing evolution into separate stages: the present survivors came from the extinct past stages. (dhw's bold)

dhw: I must stop slicing evolution into stages, but the present survivors came from past stages, and you never contradict yourself! Once more: each past stage rendered 99.9% extinct and only 0.1% survived. The 0.1% then produced the new species until the next “stage”, when the process was repeated. At every stage, the new species were produced by the surviving 0.1% and not by the 99.9% that had not survived. Once a species is extinct, it cannot produce anything! You have agreed that we and our food are descended from the 0.1% survivors, not from the 99.9% that did not survive, so why do you find your own agreement insane?

DAVID: You described perfectly how evolution works. It is a continuum. I still contend the 0.1% existent today all came from the 99.9% now extinct as you describe.

What I have described “perfectly” is the exact opposite of 0.1% being descended from the 99.9% extinct, and is the exact opposite of your agreement that the current 0.1% is descended only from the 0.1% of survivors. Your refusal to agree with yourself is now becoming quite farcical. Please stop it.

The free-for-all theory

DAVID: Now sneaking in Shapiro's theory of cell directed evolution. I'll stick with God as designer.

dhw: […] if God exists, he would have designed the mechanisms that created the free-for-all.

DAVID: Of course.

dhw: So you can now have a designer God whose use of evolution makes sense.

DAVID: In your eyes.

In your eyes, your perfect God’s use of evolution is imperfect, messy and inefficient, and despite his omnipotence he is incapable of inventing a system of life without mistakes which he tries in vain to correct, but he hopes that we will help him out. And for good measure, he also designed bugs that can outsmart him. Does all this make sense?

Theodicy: a philosopher leaps

DAVID: this essay is the closest as to how I feel about God and faith. My bolds show this. God is limited in options that work, not in power, is my one disagreement. (dhw's bold)

dhw: 90% of this brilliant essay chimes in with my own views of a possible God, though I find it just a little surprising that Philip Goff has decided to leap into Christianity. This is perhaps due to what I see as a very inadequate presentation of the case for atheism.

I shan’t repeat the glaringly obvious fact that atheism is not based on theodicy. Dawkins’ basic point is the problem of who designed the designer.

dhw: Your own comment is a contradiction in itself: if God created the universe but was limited in his options, then clearly he cannot be all-powerful.

DAVID: You still miss the point: how life works requires a system that will work. Only the current form is it. God was not limited within Himself, but in rigid requirements for a result.

So your omnipotent God was incapable of designing a Garden of Eden, and was incapable of correcting the mistakes in his system (and relied on us to help him), but he has no limitations.