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

by dhw, Wednesday, October 09, 2024, 11:19 (9 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You just described your God as having human desires. Mine doesn't.

dhw: When I asked you what you thought your purposeful God’s purposes might be for creating life, including humans, you offered enjoyment of creation and interest in his creations, and for humans perhaps to have a relationship with him, to recognize him and to worship him. This tied in with your agreement that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours. This does not make us gods or him human. You now wish to withdraw all your own perfectly reasonable guesses as well as my logical alternatives (which adopt some of those guesses), because they clash with your view that your God is “selfless”.

DAVID: It was the rediscovery of Adler's 50/50 that set off my line of thought about God's selflessness.

You told us that this referred only to the question of whether God cares for us. You have also told us that your conclusions are yours alone, not Adler's. However, 50/50 = maybe yes, maybe no, which is no reason at all for rejecting your earlier proposals.

DAVID: His only known purpose is to create humans.

That is absurd. You believe he specially designed all organisms, strategies, life styles and natural wonders extinct and extant that enabled species to survive, some for millions of years! Even you can’t explain why, if his only purpose was to create us (plus food), he didn’t do so directly. In brief, if God exists, we can only assume that he had a purpose (unknown to us) for creating all life, including humans.

DAVID: Could there be self-serving motives that I suggested as you note above? If we accept them as human wishes for a close relationship without knowing if God cares or not, they can be stated that way as reasonable statements. I am allowed to redevelop my thoughts about God as we discuss Him.

I’m delighted that you are now rethinking your thoughts, but please don’t limit them to our wishes. You suggested purposes that were HIS thoughts and wishes, not ours. We don’t wish him to create because he enjoys creating, or to want us to recognize and worship him. These are purposes you suggested for his creation of life and of humans. And they are not selfless, so maybe you should redevelop your thoughts - always with the agnostic proviso that we don’t actually “know” if any of the theories are true.

99.9% v 0.1%

dhw: [...] Once more: Our extinct ancestors are part of the 99.9% of extinct species. But at each stage, after extinction, it was the 0.1% of survivors who produced the new species. You have agreed that we are descended from the 0.1% survivors, and not from the 99.9% which did not survive. Now please tell us Raup’s theory as to how dead organisms can produce new species.

DAVID: Of course they don't! Either they were a dead end OR they produced their new species progeny as they went extinct.

So you think that the 99.9% could have quickly produced new species while they were dying because of new conditions. Remarkable. And when you agree that we are descended from the 0.1% of successive survivors, you really mean that we are descended from the 99.9% of those that didn’t survive. But the 0.1% must also have produced new species. So now we sre descended from every species that ever lived. How does this fit in with the following (repeated ad nauseam)?
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.

When will you stop disagreeing with yourself?

The free-for-all theory

dhw: Listen to yourself: “God had to handle mistakes in evolutionary events, not in the biochemical system of life!!!” “The biochemistry of life has free floating proteins in action, free to make mistakes.” No contradiction? “Of course he wished it [the system].” “God…does not have wishes.” […]

Your theories are riddled with such contradictions, as are your comments on the free-for-all theory.

DAVID: The living system we have is the only one we know.
True,
DAVID: A God, by definition omniscient, will pick the only possible working system. Why should He deliberately give us a system that raised all the issues we discuss in the theodicy threads? You just raised up your humanized guy who likes to be entertained.

An omnipotent and omniscient God by definition will not be limited in his power or his knowledge. He will design whatever system he wishes to design, including a Garden of Eden***. That is one good reason why we have the problem of theodicy. Your latest solution is that he did not have the power or knowledge to prevent or cure all the evils, though he tried to do so but is reliant on humans to do what he can’t do. As regards enjoyment (which you change to “entertainment”), you have agreed that all your suggestions regarding his possible purposes – including enjoyment – are reasonable. Stop contradicting yourself. (This discussion is expanded on the “more miscellany” thread.)

*** a relevant quote for you:
DAVID: That God did not want a boring Garden of Eden for us, is a reasonable guess.

He didn’t want it. Not he couldn’t have designed it.