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

by David Turell , Monday, December 02, 2024, 17:23 (1 day, 14 hours, 45 min. ago) @ dhw

Theodicy

DAVID: The errors that God corrects for in His editing systems is for copying errors, probably effective at a 99.9999999% rate. Earthquakes relate to plate tectonics which gave us the right conditions for life. Bugs started life and are basic components of it. All of these necessary items have side effects.

dhw: So why do you blame him for all the natural disasters and the bugs that cause diseases? Could it be that you find it as difficult as I do to understand why an all-powerful, all-knowing God did not have the power or the knowledge to create a system that did not require editing by us, to prevent disasters long after conditions for life had been established, and to avoid creating murderous bugs that were not necessary for life and caused nothing but suffering and death?

I say the bugs are necessary and you say unnecessary. I see them fitting into an ecosystem to play a role. Your proof? Life requires high-speed reactions by proteins free to make errors. It appears to be the only way that works. But, of course, you always know more than God as you criticize Him.

dhw: As regards evolution, you have no explanation for his having designed and had to cull 99 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with the one and only purpose you impose on him, and that is why you have labelled him messy, cumbersome and inefficient.

DAVID: Evolution requires culling organisms or it doesn't work. This is your totally fallacious, invented point.
And:
DAVID: Again your totally fallacious invention about evolution. To reach an endpoint requires culling in all forms of evolution.
And:
DAVID: You keep uselessly repeating your mantra. Nothing was unnecessarily culled during evolution.

Since you completely ignored my response, I will repeat it:
dhw: Another of your crude obfuscations. Of course if your God’s only purpose was us and he designed 99 out of 100 irrelevant species, it was necessary for him to cull them. What was unnecessary and totally inexplicable is that he would have designed them in the first place! That is why you ridicule him as being “inefficient”, rather than acknowledge the possibility that your theory might be wrong.

God chose to evolve us over time for His own reasons. To provide vast resources for human use required an evolution with many branches. Not elegant, but it worked.

Free-for-all

dhw: It is […] nonsense to “dismiss” your own “humanizing” theories and mine just because they involve your God having human attributes, since we agree that he can have human-like thought patterns and feelings although he is not a human being.

DAVID: Let's leave it at that.

dhw: Thank you. I shall earmark your agreement for future reference.
Next day:
dhw: As usual, you agree, and the next day you scurry back to your silly “humanization” objection.

DAVID: My proposed ways we might relate to God are all human wishes which God may or may not favor. We do not know what God personally wants, if anything. You constantly picture Him with human desires, as if He is one of us.

dhw: And so back you go again. You proposed that your God might have created us because he wanted us to recognize and worship him. Why would you wish that he would want you to worship him? You think that may be HIS wish. It is part of your theory that your God’s sole purpose was to create us. Of course you’re right that we don’t know. We don’t even know that he exists. But you have said yourself that he must have had a reason/purpose for creating life and us, and enjoyment, interest, desire for a relationship, recognition, worship are YOUR feasible proposals, which all entail thought patterns and emotions that he probably/possibly shares with us. You agree that these proposals are possible, and you agree that they do not turn your God into a two-legged mammal, and you proposed that we should leave it at that. How many more times are you going to attack your own theories and ignore your own agreements?

My agreement is God is not your humanized form. What I have proposed is a group of human wishes for a relationship. You are correct, we have no way of knowing what God desires and my proposals in no way make Him human..