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

by dhw, Tuesday, November 12, 2024, 11:45 (9 days ago) @ David Turell

Under Human evolution: Denisovan contribution

DAVID: I view God as a mind at work. He knows all and can do anything He wishes.

dhw: If God exists, then I would find this feasible. That is why I have argued that he could have created an Eden (a world without evil) if he had wished, but you insist that he had no choice.

DAVID: Of course no choice. All animals have to eat and they eat each other.

There is no reason at all why your omnipotent God should not have designed a vegetarian world if he had wanted to. Ditto a world without murderous bacteria and viruses and diseases for which according to you, despite his omnipotence, he apparently relies on us to provide the cures he couldn’t provide.

DAVID: I can't solve the conundrum of why God evolved us. He hasn't ever revealed His reasoning.
And:
DAVID: I've imposed nothing on God as you shape Him to conform to your image.
And:
DAVID: All of them [reasons for creating humans] have been exposed in the past here and I believe they represent human wishes about/for God.

Why would you wish that your God wants to be worshipped? Why do you reject such a logical reason for his creating us? But I agree that most of the irrational theories you impose on him reflect your wishes, which is why you reject any logical alternatives, including those that solve your “conundrum”. As for my proposals, I have not shaped him to any single image but have actually accepted many of your own humanizing images of him as feasible (e.g. enjoyment, interest, avoidance of boredom, desire for recognition and worship).

DAVID: A natural free-for-all would not necessarily produce the human brain.

dhw: Very true. A natural free-for-all would not necessarily have produced dinosaurs, whales, ants or the duck-billed platypus either. Your God may have dabbled, or he may have been delighted at all the different, unexpected products of his invention.

DAVID: An omniscient God expects all events. Stop humanizing God.

You agree that he probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions like ours, you propose various “humanizing” reasons for his actions, and then you reject any “humanizing” reasons you don’t like. If God wants and creates a free-for-all, why does that render him more human than your inefficient designer of evolution, or your benevolent God who can’t avoid creating evil and relies on us to cure diseases he can’t cure?

Reason and purpose

DAVID: One must develop an immaterial desire based upon simple or complex reasoning. One develops reasons for a purpose which is then acted upon. […] Any reason to produce a desire takes preparatory thought looking at all the factors. That is what you are missing.

All stages require preparatory thought! You don't embark on the action until you've thought about how to fulfil the purpose/reason (synonymous) for it. Having to think about things doesn't alter the fact that first comes the purpose/reason (synonymous) for an action, and then comes the action to fulfil the purpose.

dhw: This discussion is totally pointless, except that it enables you to draw attention away from the subjects that really matter: namely, your irrational theories of evolution (God’s “inefficiency”), God’s nature and wishes (enjoys creation, wants to be worshipped, but is selfless), and theodicy (does more good than evil and is therefore all-good).

DAVID: The dogmatic essay on God I produced today is the direct opposite of my view. I think freely about God. And you are tied to a humanized God.

Your “free thinking” is a euphemism for your total confusion of schizophrenic contradictions, as described elsewhere. I am not tied even to God’s existence, let alone to a single concept of his purpose and nature. Hence my alternative theistic theories about evolution. I have covered the dogmatic essay separately.

99.9% v 0.1%

DAVID: Evolution is not discontinuous but a continuous process of producing new species. The discontinuity is part of the continuing process.

dhw: You’re off on your silly language games again. If species become extinct, leaving no descendants, then that line of evolution is obviously discontinuous. Continuity is provided by the survivors. [I went on to point out that your theory of Cambrian “de novo” speciation with no precursors was a perfect example of discontinuity.]

As you have not responded, I take it that you agree. So now we can get back to the subject:

1) Do you now agree with yourself that we are descended, not from 99.9% of species that ever lived but from the 0.1% survivors?

DAVID: Of course.

At last. End of discussion.

2) Since you accept Raup’s statistics (I don’t really like such precision), do you now agree that the 0.1% of survivors could not have been the progeny of the 99.9% that did not survive?

DAVID: No. The 99.9% extinct produced the 0.1% surviving. Sticking to Raup.

Unbelievable. Listen to yourself: "Raup opens his book by telling us in evolution 99.9% extinct left the 0.1% alive today. Nothing about your mummies and daddies.” It is YOU who wrote: “The 0.1% survivors are the progeny of the 99.9%” when you explained what you meant by “produced”. Once again: Do you now agree that the extinct 99.9% could not have been the mummies and daddies of the surviving 0.1%?