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

by dhw, Thursday, October 10, 2024, 11:05 (42 days ago) @ David Turell

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

dhw: 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: I've rejected nothing. I've simply readjusted my view of God's personality. All 'my earlier proposals' still apply.

This is excellent news, because in recent weeks you have insisted that your God is “selfless” and have rejected the possibility that his purpose for creating life might be enjoyment of creating something interesting, and his purpose for creating humans might be his desire for recognition and worship – all of which denote self-interest.

DAVID: His only known purpose is to create humans.

dhw: 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: Yes, and you forget we use all of life now. You defined His purpose.

I do not accept that all past life was designed for our use, and I keep asking you why you think even present wonders like fly-eating fungi and the weaverbird’s nest are necessary for our existence. I have never defined his purpose, but I have offered three alternative theistic guesses, based on the history of life as we know it.

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.

dhw: 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. […] 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. (my bold)

AVID: Again, Adler's 50/50 applies. A selfless God could easily accept our wishes for a relationship.

You simply ignore what I write, and distort what you wrote. You were asked why you thought your God might have created us, and your answer was that maybe HE wished for a relationship with US, and HE may want US to recognize and worship him (which you have also completely ignored). These possible wishes of HIS are not selfless.

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: When will you stop disagreeing with yourself?

DAVID: Either they were a dead end OR they produced their new species progeny as they went extinct.
And:
DAVID: All Raup said was 99.9% went extinct while producing the surviving 0.1%. You have extrapolated that point beyond all belief. Evolution has no interruptions. The 99.9% produced the 0.1%.

How could ANYONE believe that organisms in the process of being wiped out by new conditions could “produce” organisms capable of surviving in the new conditions? Raup specifies a 0.1% survival rate. These would be the organisms that are already capable of coping with the new conditions, and so it should be blindingly obvious that they are the ones that “produce” new species which can also survive the new conditions. Of course evolution has interruptions: plural extinctions which result in the extinction of 99.9% of existing species represent interruptions, but continuity is provided by the 0.1% of survivors! Why do you continue to ignore your bolded agreement?

The free-for-all theory

dhw: 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,

DAVID: The NUANCE you miss is we live in the only system that could work. His omniscience would lead Him to the only one that works with its attendant warts. That is WHY the warts exist.

It is not a “NUANCE” – it is your theory and it contradicts his omnipotence.

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

He did not want it. Not he couldn't design it.

DAVID: I think the bold is a misquote. Of course, He could design Eden if He wished.

Thank you. That means he was not forced to create a system with warts, but he wished to do so. Case closed.