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

by dhw, Wednesday, November 13, 2024, 12:17 (8 days ago) @ David Turell

Some points are covered on the “Miscellany”thread under “A theoretical God”.

DAVID: 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.

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.

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

I’m not denying the importance of good bacteria and viruses. It’s the baddies that are the problem. You say your omnipotent and omniscient God “can do anything he wishes”, but he can’t create a system without carnivores and murderous bacteria etc.

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

Enjoyment of creation and of a free-for-all would be purposes in themselves. Experimenting in order to make new discoveries would add to the interest and enjoyment. Experimenting in order to achieve a particular goal (e.g. to create a being in his own image who might worship him) fits in with your own belief and would explain the designing and culling which you find impossible to understand. These are separate, alternative, theistic explanations, not beliefs, but although you tell us that “at least I am exploring possibilities”, you refuse to explore any possibility that your current fixed theories might be wrong.

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?

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

Why don’t you answer my question before asking your own? Yes, of course he created evil etc. (if he exists). That is the whole problem of theodicy! And the problem is not solved by telling us that your God creates more good than evil. Or by telling us that your omnipotent, omniscient God was powerless or was too ignorant to be able to create an Eden, i.e. a world without evil. One possible explanation would be that he wanted a free-for-all (as already suggested by your belief that he gave humans free will to do whatever they wanted to do). This would make for a far more interesting history than one in which all creations were his puppets doing whatever he made them do. It would entail a form of deism, but of course you have shut your mind to that as one of the possibilities you are NOT prepared to explore.

Reason versus purpose

I’m pleased to see you have now dropped this silly subject. Thank you.

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.

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%?

DAVID: 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.

As before, the continuity is provided by the survivors. The discontinuity relates to those species which went extinct, leaving no survivors. (Also to your Cambrian theory, in which your God designs our ancestors “de novo”, which = with no precursors at all.) The 99.9% of species which left no survivors cannot have been the mummies and daddies of the survivors, and so the 99.9% of species which left no survivors cannot have produced anything living today. Only the survivors could have produced the 0.1% living today, as you have just agreed. Please stop contradicting yourself, accept your own agreement, and let's move on.