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

by dhw, Monday, March 17, 2025, 11:03 (18 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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.

DAVID: You are blind to the nuance. There are two stages to fine-tuning. Fine-tuning of the factors that make a universe what it is are what allow life to appear. The next required step is habitability somewhere. You say: "You refuse to accept that fine-tuning is the final stage of any creative process," and you are wrong. Unless a universe itself is fine-tuned, life cannot happen. The search for aliens supports my view looking for life anywhere else."

You are blind to the fact that unless the entire universe is fine-tuned for life, the entire universe cannot be called fine-tuned for life! Searching for aliens does not prove there is life everywhere! Yes, there’s a sequence of events, but you won’t accept that habitability is an absolutely indispensable fine-tuning for life, and biochemical fine-tuning is what actually produces it (instead of merely “allowing” it). Twice you have ignored my Venus question, so I’ll answer it: there is no evidence of water, the surface temperature is too hot, and the atmosphere is too thick. It is not fine-tuned for life. The same may apply to the “entire universe” – ours is the ONLY planet known to be fine-tuned for life. Don’t you understand that for a place to be fine-tuned for life, it must have ALL the features that are necessary for life?

Theodicy
DAVID: I think He is powerless to prevent human evil.
And:
DAVID: I raised the theodicy issue with full awareness of evil. I'm satisfied with my answers.

A recap on your answers: 1) don’t even think about evil – just focus on the good; 2) your all-powerful God is powerless to prevent evil; 3) your all-good God has created evil, but who cares so long as you are happy and are satisfied with your answers?

God’s nature and/or purpose(s)

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Exactly!!!

dhw: So stop telling us that the question is whether God has a different dictionary from ours!!!

DAVID: He may well have a different dictionary. My 'exactly' came from misunderstanding your sentence. "whether he loves us as WE understand love" is what I accepted. Sorry.

Recap: you have made the humanizing proposals that your God might enjoy creating, be interested in his creations, may or may not love us, might want a relationship with us, might want us to recognize his work and worship him. We do not know if any of these human thought patterns and emotions are true of him, but you think they are all possible. What do you object to in this summary of your thoughts?

Evolution

DAVID: Is God using evolution to create logical?

dhw: 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 paralyze the female so that she couldn’t follow his instructions.

DAVID: […] My many past answers satisfy me. Humans were God's goal in evolution. All animals and plants played a role.

You have agreed that 99 out 100 played no role in what you insist was your God’s sole purpose, to produce us and our food. Hence your ridicule of him for his inefficiency.

dhw: (under “savannah”): I have offered you alternative “God-given” interpretations of evolution’s history, and you even acknowledge their logic, but your beliefs are now fixed and your mind is closed.

DAVID: So is yours. You refuse to accept Adler's view of God.

dhw: I have no fixed beliefs: […] you have told us that Adler does not cover the wacky, now bolded theories you propose above. Please stop trying to hide behind him.

DAVID: As my teacher I must use him.

Then stop misusing him. You have told us he does NOT support your wacky theory of evolution.

Green spoonworms
DAVID: Another strange organism that plays a role in its ecosystem, but it may help us in the fight with antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Weird and wonderful. All life forms play a role in their ecosystems, but that doesn’t mean that all ecosystems have been designed for the benefit of us humans.

Polar bears’ deicing methods
DAVID: I wonder about diving birds in the Arctic and other animals who are partially aquatic in their lifestyles. The evolutionary process has a solution for every challenge.

I agree. One might conclude that the cell communities of which all life forms are made have minds of their own (possibly created originally by your God) which enable them to find their own individual solutions to the problems posed by their respective environments.