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

by dhw, Thursday, November 14, 2024, 11:47 (7 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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: Apparently not.

If he is incapable of creating a system without carnivores and murderous bacteria etc., he can’t be called omnipotent or omniscient.

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

dhw: 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: Your fixation is upon a humanized God.

I have presented a God with goals. In none of my alternatives is he a human being, but I have quoted your own theories as to his possible reasons for creating life and us (e.g. enjoyment, interest, desire for a relationship, recognition, worship), all of which confirm your own agreement that he probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions like ours. Please explain why you now think it impossible for your God to have any human-like thought patterns and emotions. If this is not your belief, then please stop harping on about “humanization”, and explain why you think my logical alternatives are not feasible.

Theodicy

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

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Why must God want to desire an interesting history if He knows it all in advance? You can't get over He is not human in any way.

You are so blinded by your fixed beliefs that you can’t even understand that the history will be more interesting IF HE DOESN’T KNOW IT IN ADVANCE. Hence our free will, and the possibility that he wanted a free-for-all! Just as he is not omnipotent if he is powerless to create an Eden without evil, he is not omniscient if he deliberately designs an invention which produces events he cannot foresee. Your silly “not human in any way” is dealt with above.

99.9% v 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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Fine.

Thank you. I will note this agreement just in case you start contradicting yourself again in a few days’/weeks’ time.