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

by David Turell , Monday, October 28, 2024, 17:48 (24 days ago) @ dhw

God and possible purposes

DAVID: If He knows what is coming He cannot be bored.

dhw: So you wouldn’t get bored reading the same book a thousand times. Please explain why you agreed that God would find puppets pretty boring.

DAVID: Human activity is fully known and expected to an omniscient God. I've changed my view.

dhw: Your views have been known to change within a single post, as with God’s probably/possibly having thought patterns and emotions like ours, but not being human in any way (see below). Of course an omniscient God would know everything. And that means he knows what boredom is and knows how to prevent it. That would also explain why an omnipotent God could have created a boring life without problems (Eden) but decided not to. Remember?

DAVID: I follow the guideline that God is not human in any way.

dhw: But you also believe that all our “humanizing” proposals, including God’s love for us, are possible, although they are not possible. Hence your self-diagnosed schizophrenia.

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

dhw: How do you know that he has no desire for self-gratification?

DAVID: As God is perfect he does not need self-gratification.

dhw: We are not talking of “need” but of purpose. Your concept of perfection is a selfless, emotionless being who inefficiently creates millions of species with no purpose except to design us plus food, but with no purpose for designing us plus food, although it is possible that he enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, loves us, is benevolent, and may want recognition and worship...These possibilities are possible but impossible, and you never contradict yourself.

Not contradictions, just going back and forth, studying possibilities of an all-everything God.

99.9% v 0.1%

dhw: 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?

DAVID: You are muddying lines of descent.

dhw: You are, when you tell us that the 0.1% are the progeny of the 99.9%!!!

DAVID: Overall evolutionary statistics for all time. 99.9% extinct produced 0.1% surviving.

dhw: Thank you for abandoning your genealogy. No thanks for ignoring your misrepresentation of Raup, and for insisting that for 3.8 billion years, the 0.1% of survivors have each had an average of 99.9 different species of mummies and daddies.

DAVID: I read Raup's book, have you?

Dhw: No, I can only comment on your version of what he said (see above). Please quote the passage in which he tells us that the 0.1% of survivors were the progeny of the 99.9% that did not survive. And do please tell us if you yourself really believe that one species can have 99 mummies and daddies from different species.

Page 1 and 2 paraphrased! Only one in a thousand that ever existed are still alive. That is a 99.9% extinction rate. Between five and fifty billion ever lived. That is it. We can assume 0.1% are the survivors to make 100%. All inclusive, no lines of descent!