New Miscellany: fine tuning, theodicy, evolution (General)

by dhw, Saturday, March 15, 2025, 08:44 (20 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: FACT: There are no known answers to any of the questions raised on this thread or the Savannah thread, including the existence, nature and possible purposes of a God. We can only offer theories and test their logic against whatever knowledge we do have.

Fine tuning again

DAVID: Yes. The entire universe is biochemically fine-tuned for life to appear. Environmental issues are secondary.

dhw: You have said yourself that life is only possible in a hospitable environment. If a hospitable environment is indispensable, it cannot be “secondary” (= of minor importance). The only place in the universe which we know is biochemically and environmentally fine-tuned for life is Planet Earth. It is possible that there may be others, but they will be few and far between, and so it illogical to argue that the entire universe is fine-tuned for life.

DAVID: You don't understand my emphasis. This universe is fine-tuned for life to appear. That is a primary requirement. Then habitability must exist somewhere for life to appear. A two-step process. Both equally important.

It’s a lot more than two steps, but in any creative process, fine-tuning is the final step. It is blindingly obvious that unless a planet offers hospitable conditions, it cannot be called “fine-tuned for life”. Would you say that Venus is fine-tuned for life? If not, why not? Your answer should tell you why it is absurd to say that the entire universe is fine-tuned for life.

Theodicy
#
dhw: […] just admit that it makes no sense to you, instead of lurching from one digression (e.g. “proportionality”) or contradiction (he’s all-powerful but powerless) to another?

DAVID: The 'digressions' are the answers.

dhw: The digressions and contradictions do not offer a logical answer to the question how an all-good, all-powerful God can create evil or be powerless to prevent it.

DAVID: I think He is powerless to prevent human evil.

Our discussion includes all the murderous viruses and natural disasters for which he is responsible. But in any case, an all-powerful God should not be powerless. On the other hand, an all-good God should not willingly create evil. You see how complex the problem of theodicy is?

Evolution

dhw: YOU know what you mean by enjoy, interest, love etc., and the only question is IF he does or doesn’t enjoy, have interest, love etc. There is no “allegory”, and it’s you who have proposed all of these as possible motives for his creation of life and us, so please stop pretending that your own proposals don’t “humanize” him. In any case, why should you assume that your God would NOT endow his creations with some of his own thought patterns and emotions?

DAVID: What words/concepts mean to God MAY NOT be the same as the meanings to us in discussions.

dhw: The question is not whether God uses a different dictionary from ours,

DAVID: Yes it is!!! […] He understands our words in our meanings, but He may use them for Himself in some other way unknown to us.

I do not believe for one second that YOU did not use the words with the meaning we all give to them. The question is whether he loves us as WE understand love, not whether his dictionary gives a different definition of “love” from ours.

Nature’s Wonders: octopus rape

DAVID: The symbiosis is not surprising.

dhw: Of course not. Don’t you agree, though, that it demonstrates intelligent cooperation between bacteria and the cell communities of the octopus? Or do you think your God gave different instructions to the female's and the male's bacteria and cell communities?

DAVID: Same instructions.

dhw: So he instructed the female’s cell communities and bacteria to eat the male, and he instructed the male’s cells and bacteria to paralyse the female. Oh what fun! Maybe this is your idea of your God enjoying creating. And presumably you regard this as essential to your God’s purpose of designing us and our food. Not much logic here, is there?

DAVID: Is God using evolution to create logical?

If God exists and we believe evolution happened, then of course it’s logical that he used it. What is not logical is your absurd theory that he used it for the one and only purpose of designing us and our food and therefore designed 99 out of 100 species unconnected with us and our food, and designed the female octopus to eat the male octopus and designed the male octopus to paralyse the female so that she couldn’t follow his instructions.