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

by dhw, Saturday, October 19, 2024, 09:04 (3 days ago) @ David Turell

God and possible purposes

As is so often the case, you launch an attack based on your own schizophrenic contradictions. In the following exchange, “reason” is synonymous with purpose.

DAVID: Why must he have a reason. It is part of your humanizing God.

dhw: If you don’t think he has a reason, why the heck do you keep telling us how purposeful he is, that his only purpose was to create us plus food, that only he knows his reasons for creating the vast universe, that his reasons for life and us may be enjoyment, interest, recognition, worship etc.? […] 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?

DAVID: 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.

We do not even “know” if he exists, and so we theorize. Do you or do you not believe that your God is purposeful?

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

Your complaint above was that your God didn’t have to have a reason, and looking for reasons meant humanizing God. The human-like thought patterns and emotions you consider possible do not turn your God into a human being. Nor do my alternative theories (which are not fixed beliefs). You believe in a free-for-all dog-eat-dog history of life, and in your God’s gift of free will to humans. You have agreed that he would be bored by a puppet show. Experimentation for one purpose or for making new discoveries is not “powerless”. The free-for-all ties in with your belief that he enjoys creation and is interested in his creations: the enjoyment and interest would be considerably less if he knew exactly what was going to happen.

DAVID: (under “the free-for-all theory”) You've twisted my thought. God did not want US bored. An omniscient God doesn't care about boredom.

April 14 2024
dhw: I’m sure you’ll agree that your God, who you believe is interested in his creations, would find puppets pretty boring.

DAVID: Exactly!

The free-for-all theory and purpose

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.

dhw: 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: All possibilities, but it doesn't give us God's personal reasoning, only what He created.

Nobody knows God’s personal reasoning, and we extrapolate our theories from what he created (if he exists). Your theories are full of schizophrenic contradictions, ending up with an all-purposeful God who may have no purpose at all.

99.9% v 0.1%
dhw: […] 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.

DAVID: The 99.9% extinct produced the 0.1% surviving. An overall statistical view. You keep digging into evolutionay branches to distort the overall concept.

The overall concept is that extinctions resulted in 99.9% losses and 0.1% survivals. How does that come to mean that 99.9% of all species were the mummies and daddies of the 0.1% survivors? Raup would be turning in his grave if he knew you were blaming him for this nonsense.