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

by David Turell , Friday, October 18, 2024, 19:14 (34 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: "Reason" is the same as a goal to produce humans.
And:
DAVID: My God's purpose is producing us. Not 'without a purpose'.

dhw: How can you have a purpose for doing something without having a reason for doing it?

dhw: You provide us with reasons when you can think of them, but when I ask you for reasons for beliefs which you can’t explain (e.g. your wacky theory of evolution, or the vastness of the universe), you tell me that wanting reasons is “humanizing”! Do you or do you not believe that your God has reasons for his actions?

We do not know His reasons and He may not have any. We look at His creations for reasons and see purpose, but that is an endpoint.

DAVID: I can't unless you stop your humanization of God.

dhw: You provided us with a list of “humanizing” reasons why your God might have created life and us (see above), all of which are perfectly plausible, and when I accept them (e.g. enjoyment, interest) you moan that I am “humanizing”. And you conveniently forget that having human thought patterns and emotions does not turn your dog or your God into a human being.

I am complaining about your humanized God who wants free-for-alls for entertainment and can powerlessly only achieve evolution through experimentation .

99.9% v 0.1%

dhw: I am happy to accept your earlier agreement that we and our food are NOT descended from the 99.9% of creatures that ever lived, but “from the 0.1% surviving”. Why don’t you just leave it at that?

DAVID: Fine. We disparate views of evolution. I'm with Raup's overall statistics.

dhw: Strangely enough, so am I. And I’m relieved that you have finally accepted that we plus food are NOT descended from the 99.9% but from the 0.1%. […]

DAVID: Off we go again. The 99.9% produced the surviving 0.1%.

dhw: Aaaargh! You clarified “produced” as follows: “The 0.1% survivors are the progeny of the 99.9%”. “Progeny” means offspring, babies...So you have 99.9% being the mummies and daddies of 0.1%. For instance, each of the 4 surviving dinosaur species had no less than 99 mummies and daddies. As they lay dying, sauropods mated with stegosaurs to “produce” theropods etc. etc.It’s lucky they all died before there was a battle for custody. Please, please, stop this nonsense.

The 99.9% extinct produced the 0.1% surviving. An overall statistical view. You keep digging into evolutionay branches to distort the overall concept. We have two different ways of looking at evolution. Live with it .

The free-for-all theory

DAVID: Logic: we have the system God gave us. It is imperfect as shown in theodicy complaints. If God is not all-powerful that could be the reason.

Alternatively, if your God wanted a free-for-all, and gave organisms their freedom to design their own means of survival, he can remain omnipotent, though for his own purposes not omniscient. (As you have agreed, a puppet show would be boring.)

DAVID: If He is all-powerful then the system we got is the only one that could work.

dhw> Illogical. If he is all-powerful, then as you have agreed, he could have created a life without problems. Omnipotence does not mean having limited powers!

DAVID: I think He is all-powerful and gave us the current system using a cumbersome way to evolve us.

dhw: Not just “cumbersome” but also “inefficient” and as you keep admitting, inexplicable. Which is why you are perfectly happy to propose “humanizing” reasons for his creating life and us, but if you can’t find reasons to support your wacky theories, you argue that your God might be a zombie who has no reasons for doing what he does.

DAVID: Suddenly you avoid God enjoying the free-for- all. Seems you have recognized your humanization of God.

dhw: Sorry, I forgot to mention that I agree with your theory that your God might enjoy creating and might take an interest in his creations, and this might explain why he would create a free-for-all (the subject of this particular thread) because, as you have logically pointed out, he might be bored by a life without problems and by a puppet show.

All possibilities, but it doesn't give us God's personal reasoning, only what He created. You've twisted my thought. God did not want US bored. An omniscient God doesn't care about boredom.