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

by David Turell , Tuesday, November 12, 2024, 17:28 (9 days ago) @ dhw

Under Human evolution: Denisovan contribution

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.

dhw: 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.

The ecosystem of this life requires bacteria and viruses as necessary components. An omnipotent, omniscient God would know the only system that would work.

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.

dhw: 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).

You have presented a God with no goals but one who needs experiments and wants to enjoy a purposeless free-for-all.

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

dhw: 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?

Your God creates evil and diseases, doesn't he?

Reason and purpose

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.

dhw: 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.

I've read it nd agree there.

99.9% v 0.1%

1) dhw: 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.

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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%?

I see evolution as a continuous process. Without the 99.9% extinctions the 0.1% would not be here. They went extinct producing the 0.1% living today.