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

by David Turell , Friday, November 15, 2024, 23:09 (6 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My all-everything God does not need all of your humanizing attributes. My current version is a selfless God who produced creations without any secondary self-aggrandizing needs. He produces what He produces for reasons known only to Him. Using His 'works' as evidence leads us to guessing as we have in the past. In no way like your very humanized God.

dhw: If your God exists, you agree that he must have had reasons for creating life and us. We cannot know them, but you have listed several perfectly logical “guesses” as possible reasons (enjoyment, interest, escape from boredom, desire for a relationship, recognition, worship). That is as far as we can go. Why is your new guess (that he is “selfless") any more logical than your previous guesses? How do you know that he does not have thought patterns and emotions like ours, despite the fact that you agree that he probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions like ours?

We do not know if God has emotions like us. Since He is not human that thought is doubtful. T That he is selfless means His creations are performed without any secondary gains for Him. God needs none. Do you think God requires anything? I don't.

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: If my God is omniscient He doesn't need an entertaining unfolding of a new unknown history like your humanized form needs.

dhw: Yet again: The guess that he might have created life and us for his own enjoyment does not denote “need”, and it is perfectly logical to assume that enjoyment would be enhanced by NOT knowing everything in advance. (You agreed that a puppet show would be boring.) Of course this means he is not omniscient. Why do you think your “guess” that he is omniscient is more valid than my guess that he might have wanted the unpredictable free-for-all which fits in logically with all the comings and goings of life’s history? (Though always with the option of dabbling, if he wished.)

You must have a humanized God. Why?

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's bold)

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.

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

DAVID: Of course the extinct which produced survivors made evolution continuous! That is all I have argued.

dhw: Why are you doing this? Look at the first quote above. You kept telling us: “The 0.1% survivors are the progeny of the 99.9%”, which means the 99.9% were the parents of the 0.1%, and you kept insisting on continuity, ignoring the fact that the 99.9% which left no survivors (and your God’s apparent creation of our ancestors “de novo”) constituted discontinuity. We had reached agreement. Please stop dragging it out.

Raup never said your distortion. All He said was 0.1% survived from 99.9% extinctions. stop slicing it up. It is a continuous process.