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

by dhw, Saturday, November 09, 2024, 08:17 (12 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: What you presented for reason and purpose in the context of the sentences you presented the words were interchangeable. This is semantics! Not the level I am discussing. God must have a background reason for His overt purpose. Here reason and purpose are not the same! I'm asking why did God choose His obvious purpose. Stop your word games.

dhw: According to you, his “obvious purpose” was to create us and our food. Your next question was: why (= for what purpose or reason) did God choose to create us and our food? Your various answers have included possible escape from boredom, desire for a relationship with us, recognition, worship...You then asked “why must God have a reason?” after which you told us “There must be an underlying reason”!!! In all cases, the words “reason” and “purpose” are synonymous, so please stop playing silly word games.

DAVID: You still don't follow my thoughts. You have used reason and purpose synonymously correctly. I am asking for an underlying conceptual reason that creates God's overt action to produce a purpose. Here reason and purpose differ.

What is the difference between a reason and a conceptual reason, and since when did an action produce a purpose? What are you referring to? You have said that your God’s purpose/reason for creating life was to create us and our food. Next, you want to know the purpose of/reason for this purpose. Schizophrenically you then ask “Why must he have a reason?” and tell us: “There must be an underlying reason for his wish to create us.” The purpose is the reason why you do something. I have repeated the possible reasons/purposes YOU have offered us for his wish to create us and our food. But since you disagree with yourself, please tell us what you think might have been the underlying reason for your God’s wish to create us. And then perhaps you will be able to explain the difference between the reason for which he wished to create us and the purpose for which he wished to create us. If there is no difference (as you have now agreed twice over), then please stop this silly word game.

DAVID: God's love is a human wish and disturbs me since God is not human. Remember Adler's use of allegorical meanings to solve your problems.
And:
DAVID: I knew exactly what Adler meant! Just as we agreed! We do not know how God views the word 'love'.

dhw: There is no “allegory”. We agreed long ago that the question is not whether God has a different dictionary from ours, but whether he loves us in accordance with what WE mean by “love”.

DAVID: That is how Adler uses allegory.

dhw: A strange use of the word, but since we agree that the question is whether he loves us according to what we mean by love, there is nothing to argue about.

DAVID: Agreed.

You have agreed before, but I will make a note of this for the next time you bring up the subject.

99.9% v 0.1%

dhw: So you really do believe that 99.9 different species were the mummies and daddies of the 0.1 survivors. I guess they do certain things differently in Texas.

DAVID: My analysis of statistical evolution and yours differ.

dhw: They don’t differ when you agree that we and our food are descended from the 0.1% of survivors, but they differ when you say that we are descended from the 99.9% that produced no survivors although they were the mummies and daddies of the survivors. Please stop this nonsense.

DAVID: I am only following Raup's presentation.

Once more: please quote the passage in which Raup tells us that the 99.9% of extinct organisms were the mummies and daddies of the 0.1% survivors.