Return to David's theory of evolution, theodicy and purposes (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, October 25, 2024, 12:52 (27 days ago) @ David Turell

God and possible purposes

DAVID: As Adler used the appearance of humans as a proof of God, it is easy for me to invert the argument and say humans were God's purpose as a logical conclusion.

As you insist that every species, extant and extinct, was individually designed by your God, it is easy for me to invert the argument and say that trilobites and dinosaurs must have been (part of) God’s purpose, though they had no connection with us and our food, The starting point of this discussion was your question why must God have a reason (= purpose), but you insist that he did (us and our food), and you only moan if I repeat the purposes YOU have suggested (see below) for his wanting to create us and our food.

DAVID: You raise the issue of God's possible boredom. If omniscient, boredom cannot be an issue.

If he knows everything, then he knows what boredom is, and he knows how to avoid it. QUOTE: 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!

Hence the possibility of a free-for-all to avoid boredom. “Exactly!”

DAVID: It is you who constantly present a God who must experiment, needs entertainment from a free-for-all, a very humanized form of God.

As usual, you have left out the possible purposes YOU have offered for your God’s creation of life and of humans: enjoyment, interest, a relationship, recognition, worship... I do not present a “must” or a “need”. Enjoyment of creation, and interest in his creations, a love of new discoveries, experiments in order to achieve a particular goal – none of these are more “humanized” or “needy” than your own list of possibilities.

DAVID: Don't combine our thoughts about a singular God.

How can I avoid doing so, when I repeat your own “humanizations” and agree that they are possible?

DAVID: At a start we know God is not human in any way. We may mimic His thought patterns.

If God exists and created us, then whatever thought patterns and emotions we share are a
reflection of his. And so he is “human” and we are “godlike” in certain ways. But these do not make him into a human being, or us into gods.

DAVID: When we say God loves us we do not know if that is true.

We do not eVen know is his existence is “true”, let alone the various theories we have about him. But if I say it is possible that God loves us, will you moan and groan that he can’t possibly do so, because love would humanize him?

DAVID: The counter thought is if He created us why wouldn't He love us. With His creation of the universe and us we must consider Him purposeful.

We agree, so why did you negate your own list of possible purposes with your question: “Why must He have a reason?”

DAVID: When I add He is selfless I mean these creations do not satisfy His own self-gratifications, which do not exist.

How do you know that all your previous theories were wrong? Do you prefer the possibility of an emotionless zombie to a God who might possibly love us? (Let us remember that your starting point is always what you wish for.)

99.9% v 0.1%

DAVID: […] We are not discussing lines of descent but an overall set of statistics about evolution and extinction. Raup said 99.9% went extinct to produce the surviving 0.1%! And you jump into dinosaurs and their bird offspring. A tiny sliver of overall evolution. Concentrate on 'overall'.

dhw: You are playing with the word “produce”, which you defined as the 0.1% being the progeny (= children) of the 99.9% percent. I have no doubt that Raup would have known the facts of parenthood, as above. His overall statistics, according to your description of his theory, were 99.9% losses and 0.1% survivors from each extinction.

DAVID: NOT each extinction! An overall view of all of evolution is Raup's statement in his book.

You wrote: “His study was to explain why extinctions happened as a necessary part of evolution. […] Well-adapted species suddenly were unprepared for new circumstances. The losses cumulatively were 99.9% with 0.1% as survivors.” What is "cumulative" if it's not the losses from all the extinctions? And how in heaven’s name do you come to interpret this as meaning that each survivor was the child of 99 sets of parents from different species?

dhw: The dinosaurs are my example, as you seem to be unable to understand the process which led you to agree that we are NOT descended “from 99.9% of all the creatures that ever lived”, but only “from 0.1% surviving”.

DAVID: "Direct" descent is those living now as existing organisms. That is why I agree I am from 0.1% surviving. But I can trace my ancestors back to 1750 AD in Serpic, Poland. Under your terms aren't they part of the 99.9%?

They were the same species as you! Of course all the mummies and daddies of the same species die, and their children die, and their children’s children die! We are discussing EVOLUTION not genealogy!!!