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

by dhw, Sunday, November 24, 2024, 11:53 (3 hours, 13 minutes ago) @ David Turell

God’s possible reasons for creating life and us

DAVID: You have restated the discussion and told us:"[I have developed your own suggestion that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, so] he may have experimented either by creating a fascinating free-for-all or by deliberately making new discoveries and getting new ideas as he went along," purely human thoughts and desires. Again, like no God I've ever read about. Not all powerful and omniscient. […]. (dhw’s bold)
And:
DAVID: I know you follow deism and process theology which allows for a changeable God. I don't, all personal choices.

You wrote: “...like no God I’ve ever read about”, but in fact you know that this alternative theory has similarities to deism and process theology. So stop pretending you’ve never heard of such a God. Earlier you rejected it because it was not mainstream. You believe your God is a messy, inefficient designer. Where did you read that? Is it mainstream?

DAVID: You want a God who experiments and waits for interesting results, and enjoys free-for-alls, all for a very humanized God as in process theology. An all-knowing God evolved us for His own reasons is my theology.

I don’t “want” anything. I am trying to find possible theistic explanations for your God’s creation of life and for his use of evolution (if he exists). Whether all-knowing or not, of course he must have had his own reasons. I can’t imagine any theology would assume that he created life for no reason at all! But your theology specifies (a) that we plus food were his one and only reason, and he messily and inefficiently chose to “evolve” (= design) and then cull 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with that purpose. You then offer us “humanizing” reasons (enjoyment, interest, escape from boredom) that could apply overall, and “humanizing” reasons (a relationship with us, recognition, worship) for his wanting to create us in particular. They all make perfect sense, but when I quote them, you reject them (“God is not human in any way”), although you also say they are all possible and God probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions like ours. And you say you never contradict yourself, although your beliefs are “schizophrenic”. This is your so-called “theology”.

Theodicy

DAVID: Surprise! No answer for your God's theodicy problems.

dhw: Theodicy is a problem for everyone who believes their God is all-good. It’s your problem, not mine. I do not regard it as a “given” that he is all-good! The OT depicts an at times self-centred, murderous monster, and who are we to say the OT has got it wrong? […]The free-for-all theory would relieve him of the responsibility for its direct creation, but it would entail his NOT being omniscient.

DAVID: You tailor your God to fit your disposition for process and reduce Him to not omniscient. Fine for you, but not for me.

I offer different alternative theories, not beliefs, and they are “tailored” to fit the facts we know, not to fit any personal wishes. Whereas you admit that your own starting point is what you wish. Maybe God is not all-good, not omniscient, not all-powerful. You make him an inefficient designer who does not have the power to create an Eden (a world without evil), and who tries (often in vain) to provide cures for some of his evils but lacks the knowledge to do so. Neither omnipotent nor omniscient. All fine for you?

99.9% v 0.1%

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: That should be the end of it.

DAVID: I don't slice [evolution] up as you do.

Raup slices it up into extinctions: his average ("cumulatively") is 99.9% disappear, and 0.1% survive and produce the next slice. You also slice it up with your belief that your God created our ancestors “de novo” (Cambrian). The dinosaur example illustrates the process.

DAVID: the dinosaur/bird example is fine, by itself but it doesn't explain Raup's statistics.

It ILLUSTRATES Raup’s statistics! The dinosaurs went extinct because of changed conditions (Chixculub). QUOTE: “Well-adapted species suddenly were unprepared for new circumstances.” The 0.1% (or whatever tiny percentage) of survivors produce the next 100% of species: the 4 surviving, avian species of dinosaur over time produce thousands of bird species, as different conditions demand or allow for adaptations and innovations.

DAVID: I take an overall view as Raup did, while you want a more intimate explanation. The 99.9% went extinct producing the surviving 0.1%, my position.

Extinct species which leave no survivors cannot produce anything. You have defined “producing” as meaning the 0.1% are the progeny of the 99.9%, and so your theory means that 99.9% of species died giving birth to 0.1%, which means each survivor had 99.9 mummies and daddies of different species. If Raup had not sadly died already, he would have died laughing – or would have had an apoplectic fit at the very mention of his name in connection with such nonsense. Please stop it and settle for what you have already agreed at the head of this post.