https://www.newscientist.com/article/2473905-unusually-tiny-hominin-deepens-mystery-of-...

'A fossilised left leg unearthed in South Africa belongs to one of the smallest adult hominins ever discovered – smaller even than the so-called “hobbit”, Homo floresiensis.

"The diminutive hominin was a member of the species Paranthropus robustus. This was one of several species of Paranthropus, a group of ape-like hominins that shared the African landscape with the earliest representatives of our human genus, Homo, between about 2.7 and 1.2 million years ago. Paranthropus had heavily built skulls that housed small brains and large teeth – which some species appear to have used to chew grass like a cow.

***

"One thing that was instantly clear was that the fossil – a thighbone, shinbone and part of the hip – belonged to an unusually small hominin. “It’s impressive how small it is compared with the shortest of the short we’ve known about so far,” says Richard Potts at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC, who wasn’t involved in the analysis.

"Pickering’s team estimates that the hominin, which was probably a young adult female, stood just 103 centimetres tall. For comparison, the best-preserved H. floresiensis individual – who lived about 80,000 years ago – was 109 cm tall.

"Such a small hominin may well have been an easy target for predators, says Pickering, and so it might have sought shelter in trees. However, there are no clear indications in the leg bones that P. robustus had special adaptations for climbing. That is a surprise: a fragmentary skeleton of a related species – Paranthropus boisei – was discovered about a decade ago, and it did have climbing adaptations.

"The two species “may have engaged in different behaviours”, says Manuel Domínguez-Rodrigo at the University of Alcalá, Spain, who led the analysis of the P. boisei skeleton. This doesn’t necessarily mean that P. robustus couldn’t climb, says Pickering, although it is unclear why it lacked the climbing adaptations seen in P. boisei.

***

"The fossil has, however, resolved at least one point of debate about P. robustus: exactly how it moved around on the ground. Although it is certain that the species could walk on two legs, it has long been unclear whether it did so most of the time or just occasionally. Thanks to the leg fossil, Pickering says we can now confirm P. robustus did walk on two legs most of the time. This, he says, is “the real revelation of our research”'.

Comment: it seems there my have been more than one line of descent to finally evolve sapiens. This is a very early hominid.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzQZSsKtxVwsKCJfFFSbLkqRhzlf

"Global study finds species are losing genetic diversity

"Genetic variation is what allows a species to adapt as climate changes, new diseases arise, and novel predators come on the scene. But just as the number of species is declining worldwide, there is a “silent extinction” underway because the genetic diversity within many species—a long overlooked aspect of biodiversity—is also being lost.

"Conservationists were already worried about declines in the genetic diversity of threatened species. But the new study indicates some animals and plants whose populations seem healthy are becoming less diverse . Conservation biologist Catherine Grueber and scores of colleagues assembled 882 papers written between 1985 and 2019 that traced diversity changes over time within individual species by analyzing the DNA of 628 species at two time points or more. They also tracked how conservation measures and ecological disturbances affected this diversity. Genetic diversity declined in two-thirds of the populations, which could make them less likely to bounce back from environmental stresses. The study also found that conservation efforts such as restoring habitat or eliminating pests failed to stem these losses, although transferring individuals into diminished populations or new habitats did help in some cases.

"The study reinforces a 2024 study that used population numbers as simpler, cheaper proxies for DNA, and found that 58% of the 919 species evaluated were losing diversity; a separate preprint concluded protecting existing habitat would not slow this loss. (my bold)

“'Finally, genetic diversity is getting the attention it deserves,” says Alicia Mastretta-Yanes, a co-author on the 2024 paper."

Comment: evolution can only advance if the available DNA is rich in diversity. I don't see humans taking over the designer's job. Major evolution producing totally new families is over.

DAVID: I am not an expert in theodicy. I've given you the answers they offer. His inefficiency is in the mode of evolution He uses, and evil is a side effect of His good works. Without His good works from His omnipotence the world would not exist.

If God exists, then yes, he created our world, which contains both good and evil. That does not mean he is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. If he is all-powerful, he must have been capable of building a world without evil. Why didn’t he? If he knew everything that would happen from beginning to end, why did he create or allow evil? How can he be all-good if as first cause he invented evil? Those are questions asked by theodicy. “Proportionality”, which focuses only on the good, avoids the question completely; “inefficiency” in this context (as opposed to your wacky theory of evolution) would assume that he wanted to be all-good but lacked the power and the knowledge to fulfil his own wishes. Another possibility, illustrated by the murderous viruses, natural disasters and murderous free-willed humans, is that he wanted the free-for-all which appears to have existed all through the history of life on Earth. This ties in with the theory, occasionally accepted by you, that he and we would have found an Eden – a world without problems – too boring. He could still be omnipotent (smash us to bits if he wants to), but not omniscient (enjoys the unpredictable), and not all-good (e.g. like the self-centred God of the OT, whose desire to be freely worshipped led him to murder anyone who didn’t do so). Can you - or the mysterious “they” in your comment - think of any other answers to the questions posed by theodicy?

Under “Neanderthal”

dhw: […] you cannot for the life of you think of a single reason bbbwhy your God should deliberately design 99 out of 100 species irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him. But still you reject any explanation that entails a commonality between the creator and his creations.

DAVID: He is not us in any way. That is a basic starting point. The bold is your usual total distortion of God's evolution which requires culling.

“In any way”? You agree that he may have thought patterns and emotions like ours, you agree that all your “humanizations” are possible, and you agree that these do not make him a human being. Stop contradicting yourself. As regards evolution, a purposeful, omnipotent, omniscient God should not need to design and then kill 99 irrelevant species out of 100 in order to achieve the goal you impose on him. That is why you call him inefficient.

DAVID: Can you describe evolution in any other way?

dhw: I have done so repeatedly: if your God wants an unpredictable free-for-all, or wants to provide himself with new ideas or to try different ways of achieving a particular goal, he is doing precisely what he wants to do. That = efficiency.

DAVID: It also equals a highly humanized God.

It means that your God has endowed us with thought patterns and emotions like his own, which you regard as perfectly possible and which you agree do not make him human.

DAVID (taken from “LUCA”): The result of God's evolution is a huge human population with full resources on Earth from His evolutionary process with culling!!!! It is no matter 99.9% were culled to achieve this great result, us and our food.

We agree on the result, so “it’s no matter” whether 99% became extinct in a process guided by luck (Raup), through a free-for-all, or through experimentation in the quest for new ideas or for the best means of achieving a particular purpose, and it’s no matter if your own theory ridicules your God as being messy and inefficient. You might as well say “it’s no matter” whether your God exists or not if all you can think about is that we are here.

Your God's purposes

DAVID: […] it is an approach which should be investigated. bbbGod possibly could just create without reason.bbb
And:
DAVID: I don't accept your suggestions. I opened the idea of a purposeless God just so we could look at Him in that way. And I close it noting He must have His own reasons.

You conclude that your God must have his own reasons, and you reject the approach that “God possibly could just create without reason”. So why raise it in the first place? Perhaps another way of dodging your own perfectly reasonable “humanizing” reasons which you schizophrenically regard as possible but not possible?

Theodicy

DAVID: I've given you theodicy answers in the literature.

dhw: I’m discussing these subjects with you. Can you not see that “proportionality” does not cancel out the existence of evil, and the problem of theodicy is the existence of evil, not the amount of good? And why do you dismiss even the theory that corresponds to one of your own? Namely, that he is incapable of devising a world without evil, though he did his best to prevent some of the consequences. This makes him inefficient (your term) and not omnipotent.

I am not an expert in theodicy. I've given you the answers they offer. His inefficiency is in the mode of evolution He uses, and evil is a side effect of His good works. Without His good works from His omnipotence the world would not exist.

NEANDERTHAL and speciation

DAVID: You just can't imagine a God like mine.

dhw: YOU have proposed a number of “humanizations” as reasons for his creating us, you agree that he and we may share thought patterns and emotions, you agree that all these proposals are possible, and you cannot for the life of you think of a single reason why your God should deliberately design 99 out of 100 species irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him. But still you reject any explanation that entails a commonality between the creator and his creations.

He is not us in any way. That is a basic starting point. The bold is your usual total distortion of God's evolution which requires culling.

Your God's purposes

DAVID: Not a zombie. God has His own unknown reasons. He could create just for the sake of creating, but I believe He had us is mind to appear after the Big Bang.

dhw: You have just asked me to imagine a God with no reasons at all, as bolded. That would be a zombie. So now you say he does have reasons, and here you even tell us one reason you believe he has, and elsewhere you also provided us with a list of “humanizing” reasons why you think he might have wanted to create us. So you have contradicted yourself as usual – it is NOT a reasonable thought that God simply creates with no reason involved. Please stop tying yourself in knots.

DAVID: But it is an approach which should be investigated. God possibly could just create without reason. God does not need human reasons to create. That is obvious. We don't know why He does it. And I have given all the possible reasons in past discussions, which are human wishes for a relationship. God might not wish relationships. Adler says 50/50. That is as far as we can go.

dhw: You have just accused me of proposing a “purposeless” free-for-all, and after years of telling us how purposeful your God is, and still refusing to budge on your belief that his sole purpose was to create us plus food, you are now advocating a purposeless God (a zombie) with none of the thought patterns and emotions which somehow he has managed to create in us. What is wrong with the reasons you have given: enjoyment, interest, desire for a relationship, recognition, worship? If even your mentor Adler says 50/50, and you agree that your humanizing proposals are possible, stop rejecting my agreement and my other explanations because they are “humanizations”.

I don't accept your suggestions. I opened the idea of a purposeless God just so we could look at Him in that way. And I close it noting He must have His own reasons.

dhw: Although you accept that all my (and your own) alternative theories relating to your God’s purposes, methods and nature are possible, they are impossible for you because they are different from your own fixed wishes and beliefs, including your astonishing conclusion that your perfect God is a messy and inefficient designer.

DAVID: Can you describe evolution in any other way?

dhw: I have done so repeatedly: if your God wants an unpredictable free-for-all, or wants to provide himself with new ideas or to try different ways of achieving a particular goal, he is doing precisely what he wants to do. That = efficiency.

It also equals a highly humanized God.

DAVID: Neat sidestep. Evil is here for all God's we create, YOUR'S definitely included. My preferred stance is evil is a side effect of all the good God creates. It is an argument from proportionality.

dhw: It is YOU who sidestep by arguing that evil is so minor (= proportionality) that we should not bother to consider it! Yes, it’s here. And the question is why your omnipotent, omniscient, perfect God created it! You have completely ignored my alternatives, which include one of your own. […]

DAVID: I've given you theodicy answers in the literature.

I’m discussing these subjects with you. Can you not see that “proportionality” does not cancel out the existence of evil, and the problem of theodicy is the existence of evil, not the amount of good? And why do you dismiss even the theory that corresponds to one of your own? Namely, that he is incapable of devising a world without evil, though he did his best to prevent some of the consequences. This makes him inefficient (your term) and not omnipotent.

NEANDERTHAL and speciation

DAVID: You always return to a humanized God who enjoys watching a purposeless free-for-all, and has to experiment to advance progress.

dhw: Not purposeless, if he enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest, as you have proposed yourself. And you yourself have demolished all your “humanizing” objections by agreeing that he may have thought patterns and emotions like ours without becoming a two-legged mammal. Stop flogging that dead horse.

DAVID: Not dead. You just can't imagine a God like mine.

YOU have proposed a number of “humanizations” as reasons for his creating us, you agree that he and we may share thought patterns and emotions, you agree that all these proposals are possible, and you cannot for the life of you think of a single reason why your God should deliberately design 99 out of 100 species irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him. But still you reject any explanation that entails a commonality between the creator and his creations.

Your God's purposes

dhw: what “selfless” reasons can you offer for his wanting to create life and us?

DAVID: Just imagine that God simply creates, no reason involved, is a reasonable thought.

dhw: For years you have (in my view quite rightly) insisted that your God is purposeful, and that his purpose for creating life was to create us. Now you’ve got him creating without any purpose at all. A zombie. And you think that is reasonable.[…]

DAVID: Not a zombie. God has His own unknown reasons. He could create just for the sake of creating, but I believe He had us is mind to appear after the Big Bang.

dhw: You have just asked me to imagine a God with no reasons at all, as bolded. That would be a zombie. So now you say he does have reasons, and here you even tell us one reason you believe he has, and elsewhere you also provided us with a list of “humanizing” reasons why you think he might have wanted to create us. So you have contradicted yourself as usual – it is NOT a reasonable thought that God simply creates with no reason involved. Please stop tying yourself in knots.

DAVID: But it is an approach which should be investigated. God possibly could just create without reason. God does not need human reasons to create. That is obvious. We don't know why He does it. And I have given all the possible reasons in past discussions, which are human wishes for a relationship. God might not wish relationships. Adler says 50/50. That is as far as we can go.

You have just accused me of proposing a “purposeless” free-for-all, and after years of telling us how purposeful your God is, and still refusing to budge on your belief that his sole purpose was to create us plus food, you are now advocating a purposeless God (a zombie) with none of the thought patterns and emotions which somehow he has managed to create in us. What is wrong with the reasons you have given: enjoyment, interest, desire for a relationship, recognition, worship? If even your mentor Adler says 50/50, and you agree that your humanizing proposals are possible, stop rejecting my agreement and my other explanations because they are “humanizations”.

dhw: Although you accept that all my (and your own) alternative theories relating to your God’s purposes, methods and nature are possible, they are impossible for you because they are different from your own fixed wishes and beliefs, including your astonishing conclusion that your perfect God is a messy and inefficient designer.

DAVID: Can you describe evolution in any other way?

I have done so repeatedly: if your God wants an unpredictable free-for-all, or wants to provide himself with new ideas or to try different ways of achieving a particular goal, he is doing precisely what he wants to do. That = efficiency.

Theodicy

DAVID: Neat sidestep. Evil is here for all God's we create, YOUR'S definitely included. My preferred stance is evil is a side effect of all the good God creates. It is an argument from proportionality.

dhw: It is YOU who sidestep by arguing that evil is so minor (= proportionality) that we should not bother to consider it! Yes, it’s here. And the question is why your omnipotent, omniscient, perfect God created it! You have completely ignored my alternatives, which include one of your own (now bolded). Part of the ground is covered again in the next exchange:

I've given you theodicy answers in the literature.

NEANDERTHAL and speciation

DAVID: You always return to a humanized God who enjoys watching a purposeless free-for-all, and has to experiment to advance progress.

dhw: Not purposeless, if he enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest, as you have proposed yourself. And you yourself have demolished all your “humanizing” objections by agreeing that he may have thought patterns and emotions like ours without becoming a two-legged mammal. Stop flogging that dead horse.

Not dead. You just can't imagine a God like mine.

Your God's purposes

dhw: what “selfless” reasons can you offer for his wanting to create life and us?

DAVID: Just imagine that God simply creates, no reason involved, is a reasonable thought.

dhw: For years you have (in my view quite rightly) insisted that your God is purposeful, and that his purpose for creating life was to create us. Now you’ve got him creating without any purpose at all. A zombie. And you think that is reasonable.[…]

DAVID: Not a zombie. God has His own unknown reasons. He could create just for the sake of creating, but I believe He had us is mind to appear after the Big Bang.

dhw: You have just asked me to imagine a God with no reasons at all, as bolded. That would be a zombie. So now you say he does have reasons, and here you even tell us one reason you believe he has, and elsewhere you also provided us with a list of “humanizing” reasons why you think he might have wanted to create us. So you have contradicted yourself as usual – it is NOT a reasonable thought that God simply creates with no reason involved. Please stop tying yourself in knots.

But it is an approach which should be investigated. God possibly could just create without reason. God does not need human reasons to create. That is obvious. We don't know why He does it. And I have given all the possible reasons in past discussions, which are human wishes for a relationship. God might not wish relationships. Adler says 50/50. That is as far as we can go.

DAVID: The next step is to assign powers. You invent a minimally powerful God to avoid the theodicy questions my God raises, while your God has created the same evils you decry.

dhw: [...] A possible answer is that he wanted the unpredictability of a free-for-all which has produced evil: he is not omniscient. Another (actually proposed by you) is that he was incapable of devising a world without evil, though he did his best to prevent some of the consequences: he is inefficient (your term) and not omnipotent. Another is that, being omnipotent and omniscient, he is a sadistic, self-centred monster who deliberately created the bad as well as the good because it satisfies his desire for what you call “entertainment” – also a possibility, but one that neither of us would wish for!

DAVID: Neat sidestep. Evil is here for all God's we create, YOUR'S definitely included. My preferred stance is evil is a side effect of all the good God creates. It is an argument from proportionality.

It is YOU who sidestep by arguing that evil is so minor (= proportionality) that we should not bother to consider it! Yes, it’s here. And the question is why your omnipotent, omniscient, perfect God created it! You have completely ignored my alternatives, which include one of your own (now bolded). Part of the ground is covered again in the next exchange:

NEANDERTHAL and speciation

DAVID: That we were close species is obvious in that we could interbreed and produce normal hybrids. Neanderthals were extremely bright dhw will raise the issue of why Neanderthals existed at all if God only wanted sapiens. […]

dhw: There is, of course, no problem at all from an atheist’s viewpoint, once they have taken the leap of faith in chance as the originator of the first cells. All species then come and go as conditions trigger adaptation, innovation or extinction. But our discussions concern the problems that arise from a leap of faith in God as the originator. If you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient creator, then it is only reasonable to believe that he had a purpose for creating life and that he was capable of fulfilling that purpose with maximum efficiency. As above, the question why he did not create us directly can be easily answered: it was NOT his one and only purpose to design us! Alternative answers would be that he wanted and deliberately created a free-for-all rather than using his power and knowledge to create a puppet show, or he is not omniscient and omnipotent and enjoys experimenting in order to create new forms (e.g. creatures that can fly, can live in new conditions, can recognize and worship him...)

DAVID: You always return to a humanized God who enjoys watching a purposeless free-for-all, and has to experiment to advance progress.

Not purposeless, if he enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest, as you have proposed yourself. And you yourself have demolished all your “humanizing” objections by agreeing that he may have thought patterns and emotions like ours without becoming a two-legged mammal. Stop flogging that dead horse.

Your God's purposes

dhw: what “selfless” reasons can you offer for his wanting to create life and us?

DAVID: Just imagine that God simply creates, no reason involved, is a reasonable thought.

dhw: For years you have (in my view quite rightly) insisted that your God is purposeful, and that his purpose for creating life was to create us. Now you’ve got him creating without any purpose at all. A zombie. And you think that is reasonable.[…]

DAVID: Not a zombie. God has His own unknown reasons. He could create just for the sake of creating, but I believe He had us is mind to appear after the Big Bang.

You have just asked me to imagine a God with no reasons at all, as bolded. That would be a zombie. So now you say he does have reasons, and here you even tell us one reason you believe he has, and elsewhere you also provided us with a list of “humanizing” reasons why you think he might have wanted to create us. So you have contradicted yourself as usual – it is NOT a reasonable thought that God simply creates with no reason involved. Please stop tying yourself in knots.

Theodicy

DAVID: The next step is to assign powers. You invent a minimally powerful God to avoid the theodicy questions my God raises, while your God has created the same evils you decry.

dhw: No, the next step is to ask why your God created evil. It is you who try to avoid the theodicy question, as above, on the grounds that there is more good than evil. A possible answer is that he wanted the unpredictability of a free-for-all which has produced evil: he is not omniscient. Another (actually proposed by you) is that he was incapable of devising a world without evil, though he did his best to prevent some of the consequences: he is inefficient (your term) and not omnipotent. Another is that, being omnipotent and omniscient, he is a sadistic, self-centred monster who deliberately created the bad as well as the good because it satisfies his desire for “entertainment” – also a possibility, but one that neither of us would wish for!

Neat sidestep. Evil is here for all God's we create, YOUR'S definitely included. My preferred stance is evil is a side effect of all the good God creates. It is an argument from proportionality.

NEANDERTHAL and speciation

DAVID: That we were close species is obvious in that we could interbreed and produce normal hybrids. Neanderthals were extremely bright but not to our level of conceptual thought. I think they were a separate species. dhw will raise the issue of why Neanderthals existed at all if God only wanted sapiens. It goes back to the issue of why God evolved us over time instead of direct creation. God had His own unknown reasons.

dhw: There is, of course, no problem at all from an atheist’s viewpoint, once they have taken the leap of faith in chance as the originator of the first cells. All species then come and go as conditions trigger adaptation, innovation or extinction. But our discussions concern the problems that arise from a leap of faith in God as the originator. If you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient creator, then it is only reasonable to believe that he had a purpose for creating life and that he was capable of fulfilling that purpose with maximum efficiency. As above, the question why he did not create us directly can be easily answered: it was NOT his one and only purpose to design us! Alternative answers would be that he wanted and deliberately created a free-for-all rather than using his power and knowledge to create a puppet show, or he is not omniscient and omnipotent and enjoys experimenting in order to create new forms (e.g. creatures that can fly, can live in new conditions, can recognize and worship him...)

You always return to a humanized God who enjoys watching a purposeless free-for-all, and has to experiment to advance progress..

Your God's purposes

dhw: what “selfless” reasons can you offer for his wanting to create life and us?

DAVID: Just imagine that God simply creates, no reason involved, is a reasonable thought.

dhw: For years you have (in my view quite rightly) insisted that your God is purposeful, and that his purpose for creating life was to create us. Now you’ve got him creating without any purpose at all. A zombie. And you think that is reasonable.

DAVID: As above: "dhw: I’m afraid the whole purpose of this forum is discussion. Nobody knows the truth, but that shouldn’t stop us from theorizing and testing our theories for feasibility." It is open season testing theories of God. We're testing a God who creates for no purpose. Isn't that possible?

dhw: If you think a zombie God is possible, so be it. But the theory is a direct contradiction of everything you have proposed over the last 16 years, and I’ll ask you straight: do YOU think it’s feasible?

Not a zombie. God has His own unknown reasons. He could create just for the sake of creating, but I believe He had us is mind to appear after the Big Bang.

DAVID: I prefer to look at the magnitude of all the good in the world. The comparison is your insistence on doom and gloom.

dhw: The problem of theodicy has nothing whatsoever to do with the proportion of good and evil, or with my personal attitude towards life (which is just as positive as yours). and it is not solved by shutting your eyes to the existence of evil. You have simply confirmed that you are unwilling to think about the problem, just as you shut your eyes to all your contradictions concerning evolution itself and your God’s human-like thought patterns, because you “first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.”

DAVID: In thinking about God, how do you begin? As an unknown personage the starting point is to look at what has been created by Him. That tells us what He wanted to create, but not why.

Agreed.

DAVID: The next step is to assign powers. You invent a minimally powerful God to avoid the theodicy questions my God raises, while your God has created the same evils you decry.

No, the next step is to ask why your God created evil. It is you who try to avoid the theodicy question, as above, on the grounds that there is more good than evil. A possible answer is that he wanted the unpredictability of a free-for-all which has produced evil: he is not omniscient. Another (actually proposed by you) is that he was incapable of devising a world without evil, though he did his best to prevent some of the consequences: he is inefficient (your term) and not omnipotent. Another is that, being omnipotent and omniscient, he is a sadistic, self-centred monster who deliberately created the bad as well as the good because it satisfies his desire for “entertainment” – also a possibility, but one that neither of us would wish for!

NEANDERTHAL and speciation

DAVID: That we were close species is obvious in that we could interbreed and produce normal hybrids. Neanderthals were extremely bright but not to our level of conceptual thought. I think they were a separate species. dhw will raise the issue of why Neanderthals existed at all if God only wanted sapiens. It goes back to the issue of why God evolved us over time instead of direct creation. God had His own unknown reasons.

There is, of course, no problem at all from an atheist’s viewpoint, once they have taken the leap of faith in chance as the originator of the first cells. All species then come and go as conditions trigger adaptation, innovation or extinction. But our discussions concern the problems that arise from a leap of faith in God as the originator. If you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient creator, then it is only reasonable to believe that he had a purpose for creating life and that he was capable of fulfilling that purpose with maximum efficiency. As above, the question why he did not create us directly can be easily answered: it was NOT his one and only purpose to design us! Alternative answers would be that he wanted and deliberately created a free-for-all rather than using his power and knowledge to create a puppet show, or he is not omniscient and omnipotent and enjoys experimenting in order to create new forms (e.g. creatures that can fly, can live in new conditions, can recognize and worship him...)

dhw: You prefer to ridicule your God as messy and inefficient, whereas an experimenting God (either looking for new ideas or pursuing a particular goal) does precisely what he wants to do.

DAVID: Just like a human!!!

Wrong way round. You’ve forgotten that he is supposed to have created us (some say “in his own image”). Yes, we might experiment, enjoy creating, be interested in our creations, and have thought patterns and emotions – just like God!!!

Your God's purposes

dhw: what “selfless” reasons can you offer for his wanting to create life and us?

DAVID: Just imagine that God simply creates, no reason involved, is a reasonable thought.

dhw: For years you have (in my view quite rightly) insisted that your God is purposeful, and that his purpose for creating life was to create us. Now you’ve got him creating without any purpose at all. A zombie. And you think that is reasonable.

DAVID: As above: "dhw: I’m afraid the whole purpose of this forum is discussion. Nobody knows the truth, but that shouldn’t stop us from theorizing and testing our theories for feasibility." It is open season testing theories of God. We're testing a God who creates for no purpose. Isn't that possible?

If you think a zombie God is possible, so be it. But the theory is a direct contradiction of everything you have proposed over the last 16 years, and I’ll ask you straight: do YOU think it’s feasible?

Theodicy

DAVID: I prefer to look at the magnitude of all the good in the world. The comparison is your insistence on doom and gloom.

dhw: The problem of theodicy has nothing whatsoever to do with the proportion of good and evil, or with my personal attitude towards life (which is just as positive as yours), and it is not solved by shutting your eyes to the existence of evil. You have simply confirmed that you are unwilling to think about the problem, just as you shut your eyes to all your contradictions concerning evolution itself and your God’s human-like thought patterns, because you “first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.”

In thinking about God, how do you begin? As an unknown personage the starting point is to look at what has been created by Him. That tells us what He wanted to create, but not why. The next step is to assign powers. You invent a minimally powerful God to avoid the theodicy questions my God raises, while your God has created the same evils you decry.

dhw: Same again: We are discussing your God’s possible purposes, methods and nature, not my attitude to life. Clearly it hurts you to discuss your wished-for preconceptions, but I’m afraid the whole purpose of this forum is discussion. Nobody knows the truth, but that shouldn’t stop us from theorizing and testing our theories for feasibility.

Agreed.

Your God's purposes

DAVID: This is a discussion of possibilities of a relationship with God. He is not human in any way so our proposals MUST accept that in our discussion. We should not humanize God in any way.

Stop laying down the law. YOU say your God must have had a purpose, which was to create us plus our food. He must also, then, have had a purpose for creating us. YOU have proposed the following “humanizing” purposes: enjoyment, interest, desire for a relationship, to be recognized, to be worshipped. YOU agree that it is perfectly possible for your God and we humans to have such thought patterns and emotions in common. And why not? What is wrong with such proposals? And of course they do not mean your God is a two-legged mammal. You agreed to that as well. And now you disagree with yourself. And the alternative you offer comes next:

dhw: what “selfless” reasons can you offer for his wanting to create life and us?

DAVID: Just imagine that God simply creates, no reason involved, is a reasonable thought.

dhw: For years you have (in my view quite rightly) insisted that your God is purposeful, and that his purpose for creating life was to create us. Now you’ve got him creating without any purpose at all. A zombie. And you think that is reasonable.

As above: " dhw: I’m afraid the whole purpose of this forum is discussion. Nobody knows the truth, but that shouldn’t stop us from theorizing and testing our theories for feasibility."

It is open season testing theories of God. We're testing a God who creates for no purpose. Isn't that possible?

DAVID: Real evolution requires culling to achieve successful survivors, doesn't it?

dhw: I don’t know what you mean by “real” evolution. The reality – if we accept Raup’s figures – is that 99.9% went extinct and 0.1% survived. […] Your theory is that it was all a messy, inefficient way of designing us. It makes no sense for an omnipotent, omniscient God to be messy and inefficient, but you reject any other theistic explanation, even if it makes perfect sense.

DAVID: By 'real' I mean any process of evolution which approaches a goal in stepwise stages. Considering who God is, you prefer a powerless God who enjoys free-for-alls for entertainment, and experimenting to find answers in evolution.

dhw: Having just informed us that a purposeless God is a reasonable theory, you go back to your purposeful theory of evolution, which of course is stepwise. I don’t “prefer” any type of God, and don’t even know if he exists. But if he does, he is certainly not powerless, though he is not necessarily omnipotent either – as you have confirmed with your examples of murderous viruses and humans with free will. You proposed that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but you try to trivialise your own proposal by calling this “entertainment”. A free-for-all would explain the comings and goings of species – as opposed to your theory that your perfect God inefficiently designed and then had to cull 99 out of 100 species because they had no connection with the one and only purpose you allow him to have. Experimentation would also explain the comings and goings which you can’t explain. You prefer to ridicule your God as messy and inefficient, whereas an experimenting God (either looking for new ideas or pursuing a particular goal) does precisely what he wants to do.

Just like a human!!!

DAVID: How many civil wars in how many countries? A tiny portion of the stable world. And where are all the rampant diseases with Covid under control? Yes, gloom and doom. Yes, they exist, but not in your magnified state.

dhw: You really don’t get it, do you? We are not discussing comparisons. 50 million deaths from one of your omnipotent, omniscient God’s viruses are enough to make us ask why God created evil. The question is not answered by counting the number of people who didn’t die.

DAVID: I prefer to look at the magnitude of all the good in the world. The comparison is your insistence on doom and gloom.

The problem of theodicy has nothing whatsoever to do with the proportion of good and evil, or with my personal attitude towards life (which is just as positive as yours), and it is not solved by shutting your eyes to the existence of evil. You have simply confirmed that you are unwilling to think about the problem, just as you shut your eyes to all your contradictions concerning evolution itself and your God’s human-like thought patterns, because you “first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.”

DAVID (earlier): I don’t know if God could have stopped it since the virus mutates on its own.

DAVID (later): It is a side effect of mutation powers He granted the virus.

dhw: So your all-knowing God knowingly granted the virus the power to kill 50 million people, and you don’t know if your all-powerful God had the power to stop it, but lots of people didn’t die, so let’s not think about theodicy. Head in the sand twice over.

DAVID: Again your doom and gloom approach to life. Would you prefer to not ever having lived?

Same again: We are discussing your God’s possible purposes, methods and nature, not my attitude to life. Clearly it hurts you to discuss your wished-for preconceptions, but I’m afraid the whole purpose of this forum is discussion. Nobody knows the truth, but that shouldn’t stop us from theorizing and testing our theories for feasibility.

Your God's purposes

DAVID: This is a discussion of possibilities of a relationship with God. He is not human in any way so our proposals MUST accept that in our discussion. We should not humanize God in any way.

Stop laying down the law. YOU say your God must have had a purpose, which was to create us plus our food. He must also, then, have had a purpose for creating us. YOU have proposed the following “humanizing” purposes: enjoyment, interest, desire for a relationship, to be recognized, to be worshipped. YOU agree that it is perfectly possible for your God and we humans to have such thought patterns and emotions in common. And why not? What is wrong with such proposals? And of course they do not mean your God is a two-legged mammal. You agreed to that as well. And now you disagree with yourself. And the alternative you offer comes next:

dhw: what “selfless” reasons can you offer for his wanting to create life and us?

DAVID: Just imagine that God simply creates, no reason involved, is a reasonable thought.

For years you have (in my view quite rightly) insisted that your God is purposeful, and that his purpose for creating life was to create us. Now you’ve got him creating without any purpose at all. A zombie. And you think that is reasonable.

DAVID: Real evolution requires culling to achieve successful survivors, doesn't it?

dhw: I don’t know what you mean by “real” evolution. The reality – if we accept Raup’s figures – is that 99.9% went extinct and 0.1% survived. […] Your theory is that it was all a messy, inefficient way of designing us. It makes no sense for an omnipotent, omniscient God to be messy and inefficient, but you reject any other theistic explanation, even if it makes perfect sense.

DAVID: By 'real' I mean any process of evolution which approaches a goal in stepwise stages. Considering who God is, you prefer a powerless God who enjoys free-for-alls for entertainment, and experimenting to find answers in evolution.

Having just informed us that a purposeless God is a reasonable theory, you go back to your purposeful theory of evolution, which of course is stepwise. I don’t “prefer” any type of God, and don’t even know if he exists. But if he does, he is certainly not powerless, though he is not necessarily omnipotent either – as you have confirmed with your examples of murderous viruses and humans with free will. You proposed that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but you try to trivialise your own proposal by calling this “entertainment”. A free-for-all would explain the comings and goings of species – as opposed to your theory that your perfect God inefficiently designed and then had to cull 99 out of 100 species because they had no connection with the one and only purpose you allow him to have. Experimentation would also explain the comings and goings which you can’t explain. You prefer to ridicule your God as messy and inefficient, whereas an experimenting God (either looking for new ideas or pursuing a particular goal) does precisely what he wants to do.

Theodicy

DAVID: How many civil wars in how many countries? A tiny portion of the stable world. And where are all the rampant diseases with Covid under control? Yes, gloom and doom. Yes, they exist, but not in your magnified state.

dhw: You really don’t get it, do you? We are not discussing comparisons. 50 million deaths from one of your omnipotent, omniscient God’s viruses are enough to make us ask why God created evil. The question is not answered by counting the number of people who didn’t die.

I prefer to look at the magnitude of all the good in the world. The comparison is your insistence on doom and gloom.

DAVID (earlier): I don’t know if God could have stopped it since the virus mutates on its own.
DAVID (later): It is a side effect of mutation powers He granted the virus.

dhw: So your all-knowing God knowingly granted the virus the power to kill 50 million people, and you don’t know if your all-powerful God had the power to stop it, but lots of people didn’t die, so let’s not think about theodicy. Head in the sand twice over.

Again your doom and gloom approach to life. Would you prefer to not ever having lived?

Your God's purposes

dhw: You insist that you do know he created life because he wished to create us humans. When asked why you thought he wished to create us humans, you provided your thoughts about HIS potential wishes: they included enjoyment, interest, and a desire for a relationship, recognition and worship. And you have consistently agreed that all are possible and do NOT turn God into a human, but in the same post you argue that he cannot have had these wishes because they would turn him into a human.

DAVID: That is why they are stated as 'potential or possible'.

dhw: But you reject them all. You write: “God ‘enjoying’ or being ‘interested’ are clearly purely entirely human characteristics you constantly apply to your vision of a humanized God”. “You constantly picture Him with human desires, as if He is one of us.” All of the above were YOUR proposals, which I find perfectly feasible, and which you regard as possible, but which you reject as “humanizing”. Stop disagreeing with yourself!

This is a discussion of possibilities of a relationship with God. He is not human in any way so our proposals MUST accept that in our discussion. We should not humanize God in any way.

dhw: So now your omniscient, omnipotent God can’t possibly enjoy creating, be interested in his creations, be caring (even your Adler gives him a 50/50 chance) or loving or “benevolent” (another of your characterisations of him), want to be recognized and worshipped. He is an omniscient zombie who knows how to create thought patterns and emotions totally unknown to himself.

DAVID: Don't be ridiculous, as omniscient He knows all before any creation. He is no zombie but creates without expecting any self gains. I can understand your description from the background of your imagined humanized God.

dhw: For the umpteenth time, all these “humanizing” characteristics were YOUR proposed reasons why your God created life and us. If he had none of them, what “selfless” reasons can you offer for his wanting to create life and us?

Just imagine that God simply creates, no reason involved, is a reasonable thought.

DAVID: Real evolution requires culling to achieve successful survivors, doesn't it?

dhw: I don’t know what you mean by “real” evolution. The reality – if we accept Raup’s figures – is that 99.9% went extinct and 0.1% survived. One day there will be 100% extinct. Extinctions are a fact of life’s history. If there is a God, then we try to understand why he created life and why he created or allowed extinctions. Your theory is that it was all a messy, inefficient way of designing us. It makes no sense for an omnipotent, omniscient God to be messy and inefficient, but you reject any other theistic explanation, even if it makes perfect sense.

By 'real' I mean any process of evolution which approaches a goal in stepwise stages. Considering who God is, you prefer a powerless God who enjoys free-for-alls for entertainment, and experimenting to find answers in evolution.

dhw: I asked you to take your head out of the sand and see the wars, civil wars, natural catastrophes and rampant diseases all around you, and you replied: “It’s out and sees a pleasant world, compared with your doom and gloom approach.” Not an approach. These evils exist, but you’d rather not acknowledge them as evils allowed by or even directly created by your God.

DAVID: How many civil wars in how many countries? A tiny portion of the stable world. And where are all the rampant diseases with Covid under control? Yes, gloom and doom. Yes, they exist, but not in your magnified state.

You really don’t get it, do you? We are not discussing comparisons. 50 million deaths from one of your omnipotent, omniscient God’s viruses are enough to make us ask why God created evil. The question is not answered by counting the number of people who didn’t die.

DAVID (earlier): I don’t know if God could have stopped it since the virus mutates on its own.
DAVID (later): It is a side effect of mutation powers He granted the virus.

So your all-knowing God knowingly granted the virus the power to kill 50 million people, and you don’t know if your all-powerful God had the power to stop it, but lots of people didn’t die, so let’s not think about theodicy. Head in the sand twice over.

Your God's purposes

DAVID: What I propose for God are our human wishes for a relationship, not His wishes. We can't know those in this one-sided discussion.

dhw: You insist that you do know he created life because he wished to create us humans. When asked why you thought he wished to create us humans, you provided your thoughts about HIS potential wishes: they included enjoyment, interest, and a desire for a relationship, recognition and worship. And you have consistently agreed that all are possible and do NOT turn God into a human, but in the same post you argue that he cannot have had these wishes because they would turn him into a human.

DAVID: That is why they are stated as 'potential or possible'.

But you reject them all. You write: “God ‘enjoying’ or being ‘interested’ are clearly purely entirely human characteristics you constantly apply to your vision of a humanized God”. “You constantly picture Him with human desires, as if He is one of us.” All of the above were YOUR proposals, which I find perfectly feasible, and which you regard as possible, but which you reject as “humanizing”. Stop disagreeing with yourself!

dhw: So now your omniscient, omnipotent God can’t possibly enjoy creating, be interested in his creations, be caring (even your Adler gives him a 50/50 chance) or loving or “benevolent” (another of your characterisations of him), want to be recognized and worshipped. He is an omniscient zombie who knows how to create thought patterns and emotions totally unknown to himself.

DAVID: Don't be ridiculous, as omniscient He knows all before any creation. He is no zombie but creates without expecting any self gains. I can understand your description from the background of your imagined humanized God.

For the umpteenth time, all these “humanizing” characteristics were YOUR proposed reasons why your God created life and us. If he had none of them, what “selfless” reasons can you offer for his wanting to create life and us?

DAVID: Will you never accept the idea that all of evolution is for the purpose of human support? The 90% non-human is for human support. We use all the resources on the planet. Please answer the point.

dhw: I have always accepted that we humans use all the resources available to us in the present world. Will you never accept that “all of evolution” includes the millions of extinct species over the last 3.8 billion years that had no connection with us, but which you insist your God designed and then had to cull because they had no connection with us and you believe we were his one and only purpose?

DAVID: Real evolution requires culling to achieve successful survivors, doesn't it?

I don’t know what you mean by “real” evolution. The reality – if we accept Raup’s figures – is that 99.9% went extinct and 0.1% survived. One day there will be 100% extinct. Extinctions are a fact of life’s history. If there is a God, then we try to understand why he created life and why he created or allowed extinctions. Your theory is that it was all a messy, inefficient way of designing us. It makes no sense for an omnipotent, omniscient God to be messy and inefficient, but you reject any other theistic explanation, even if it makes perfect sense.

Theodicy

DAVID: Not mooted. Results of investigation just published. 50,000,000 is an estimate of the 1919 deaths. I don't know if God could have stopped it since the virus mutates on its own.

dhw: You deliberately changed my example. Covid is irrelevant. Of course 50 million is an estimate. Does that mean you can ignore the deaths because there may only have been 49.9 million? Yes, your God created viruses that can mutate on their own. That is one of the problems of theodicy for which you have no answer and therefore wish to turn a blind eye to it.

dhw: The problem is his creation of evil, not his creation of good!

DAVID: Again, think of proportions. I see it as God's great good against small bad.

dhw: You only see what you wish to see. I asked you to take your head out of the sand and see the wars, civil wars, natural catastrophes and rampant diseases all around you, and you replied: “It’s out and sees a pleasant world, compared with your doom and gloom approach.” Not an approach. These evils exist, but you’d rather not acknowledge them as evils allowed by or even directly created by your God.

How many civil wars in how many countries? A tiny portion of the stable world. And where are all the rampant diseases with Covid under control? Yes, gloom and doom. Yes, they exist, but not in your magnified state.

DAVID: I am assigning the source of the events. Of course God did them.

dhw: So your God is at fault, which can only mean that either you do not regard him as all-good, or you blame him for his incompetence, which knocks out his omnipotence and his omniscience.

DAVID: My approach as side effects preserves His powers.

dhw: You have just said you don’t know if God could have stopped the flu that killed millions since the virus mutates on its own. How does that preserve his powers?

It is a side effect of mutation powers He granted the virus.

Your God's purposes

dhw: You agree that YOUR “humanizing” proposals (enjoyment, interest, desire for worship etc.) are possible and do not make your God a human being, but next moment your God cannot have the “humanizing” thoughts and emotions YOU propose, because these would make him a human being! Stop disagreeing with yourself!

DAVID: No disagreement!!! What I propose for God are our human wishes for a relationship, not His wishes. We can't know those in this one-sided discussion.

dhw: You insist that you do know he created life because he wished to create us humans. When asked why you thought he wished to create us humans, you provided your thoughts about HIS potential wishes: they included enjoyment, interest, and a desire for a relationship, recognition and worship. And you have consistently agreed that all are possible and do NOT turn God into a human, but in the same post you argue that he cannot have had these wishes because they would turn him into a human.

That is why they are stated as 'potential or possible'.

dhw: [on the subject of selflessness) …] your God must be some kind of zombie, creating us thinking, feeling beings without having had any of the thought patterns and emotions which as first cause he’s supposed to have invented from nothing. What a wonderful surprise he must have had when we humans invented love, care, benevolence, not to mention enjoyment and interest which are “clearly, purely and entirely human characteristics”. Oh but hold on, your God is omniscient, isn’t he? How the heck could he have known about all these things if they didn’t come from him?

DAVID: 'Came from Him' does not mean they are His. He can create an individual totally unlike Himself.

dhw: So now your omniscient, omnipotent God can’t possibly enjoy creating, be interested in his creations, be caring (even your Adler gives him a 50/50 chance) or loving or “benevolent” (another of your characterisations of him), want to be recognized and worshipped. He is an omniscient zombie who knows how to create thought patterns and emotions totally unknown to himself.

Don't be ridiculous, as omniscient He knows all before any creation. He is no zombie but creates without expecting any self gains. I can understand your description from the background of your imagined humanized God.

DAVID: Will you never accept the idea that all of evolution is for the purpose of human support? The 90% non-human is for human support. We use all the resources on the planet. Please answer the point.

dhw: I have always accepted that we humans use all the resources available to us in the present world. Will you never accept that “all of evolution” includes the millions of extinct species over the last 3.8 billion years that had no connection with us, but which you insist your God designed and then had to cull because they had no connection with us and you believe we were his one and only purpose?

Real evolution requires culling to achieve successful survivors, doesn't it?

dhw: That has been mooted for years and is the reason why my example was the flu that killed 50 million people in 1918/19, which you have now managed to omit.

DAVID: Not mooted. Results of investigation just published. 50,000,000 is an estimate of the 1919 deaths. I don't know if God could have stopped it since the virus mutates on its own.

You deliberately changed my example. Covid is irrelevant. Of course 50 million is an estimate. Does that mean you can ignore the deaths because there may only have been 49.9 million? Yes, your God created viruses that can mutate on their own. That is one of the problems of theodicy for which you have no answer and therefore wish to turn a blind eye to it.

dhw: The problem is his creation of evil, not his creation of good!

DAVID: Again, think of proportions. I see it as God's great good against small bad.

You only see what you wish to see. I asked you to take your head out of the sand and see the wars, civil wars, natural catastrophes and rampant diseases all around you, and you replied: “It’s out and sees a pleasant world, compared with your doom and gloom approach.” Not an approach. These evils exist, but you’d rather not acknowledge them as evils allowed by or even directly created by your God.

DAVID: I am assigning the source of the events. Of course God did them.

dhw: So your God is at fault, which can only mean that either you do not regard him as all-good, or you blame him for his incompetence, which knocks out his omnipotence and his omniscience.

DAVID: My approach as side effects preserves His powers.

You have just said you don’t know if God could have stopped the flu that killed millions since the virus mutates on its own. How does that preserve his powers?

Your God's purposes

dhw: You agree that YOUR “humanizing” proposals (enjoyment, interest, desire for worship etc.) are possible and do not make your God a human being, but next moment your God cannot have the “humanizing” thoughts and emotions YOU propose, because these would make him a human being! Stop disagreeing with yourself!

DAVID: No disagreement!!! What I propose for God are our human wishes for a relationship, not His wishes. We can't know those in this one-sided discussion.

You insist that you do know he created life because he wished to create us humans. When asked why you thought he wished to create us humans, you provided your thoughts about HIS potential wishes: they included enjoyment, interest, and a desire for a relationship, recognition and worship. And you have consistently agreed that all are possible and do NOT turn God into a human, but in the same post you argue that he cannot have had these wishes because they would turn him into a human.

dhw: [on the subject of selflessness) …] your God must be some kind of zombie, creating us thinking, feeling beings without having had any of the thought patterns and emotions which as first cause he’s supposed to have invented from nothing. What a wonderful surprise he must have had when we humans invented love, care, benevolence, not to mention enjoyment and interest which are “clearly, purely and entirely human characteristics”. Oh but hold on, your God is omniscient, isn’t he? How the heck could he have known about all these things if they didn’t come from him?

DAVID: 'Came from Him' does not mean they are His. He can create an individual totally unlike Himself.

So now your omniscient, omnipotent God can’t possibly enjoy creating, be interested in his creations, be caring (even your Adler gives him a 50/50 chance) or loving or “benevolent” (another of your characterisations of him), want to be recognized and worshipped. He is an omniscient zombie who knows how to create thought patterns and emotions totally unknown to himself.

DAVID: Will you never accept the idea that all of evolution is for the purpose of human support? The 90% non-human is for human support. We use all the resources on the planet. Please answer the point.

I have always accepted that we humans use all the resources available to us in the present world. Will you never accept that “all of evolution” includes the millions of extinct species over the last 3.8 billion years that had no connection with us, but which you insist your God designed and then had to cull because they had no connection with us and you believe we were his one and only purpose?

Theodicy

DAVID: Our Congressional study group now blames nasty Chinese for Covid's invention.

dhw: That has been mooted for years and is the reason why my example was the flu that killed 50 million people in 1918/19, which you have now managed to omit.

Not mooted. Results of investigation just published. 50,000,000 is an estimate of the 1919 deaths. I don't know if God could have stopped it since the virus mutates on its own.

DAVID: I view it as showing this as a side effect of giving us free will. These side effects are far outweighed by the good works. My blame shows the side effects are God's work.

dhw: The flu pandemic had nothing to do with our free will. The theodicy problem concerns the death of 50 million people, and the sufferings of a third of the world’s population. I quote you: “What is fair is to blame God for […] bugs causing diseases.” Blame = to state that someone is responsible for something bad. Whether or not they are “side effects” is irrelevant. Are you or are you not stating that your God was responsible for the deaths of 50 million people? Theodicy asks how one can reconcile this image with that of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God. The problem is his creation of evil, not his creation of good!

Again, think of proportions. I see it as God's great good against small bad.

DAVID: I am assigning the source of the events. Of course God did them.

dhw: So your God is at fault, which can only mean that either you do not regard him as all-good, or you blame him for his incompetence, which knocks out his omnipotence and his omniscience.

My approach as side effects preserves His powers.

Your God's purposes

dhw: […] I see absolutely nothing wrong in your God enjoying, being interested, wanting a relationship, wanting to be recognized and worshipped. You have agreed that these are thought patterns and emotions which he and we may have in common, that they are all possible, and that they do not make him a human being. But next moment you reject them all because you say they are “humanizing”.

DAVID: No disagreement. My thoughts are proposals God might or might not entertain. Stop making them as if written in stone.

dhw: Contrast this with your last entry on this post: “God is not human and does not have our emotions, while your God is fully human in thought and desires”.

dhw: You agree that YOUR “humanizing” proposals (enjoyment, interest, desire for worship etc.) are possible and do not make your God a human being, but next moment your God cannot have the “humanizing” thoughts and emotions YOU propose, because these would make him a human being! Stop disagreeing with yourself!

No disagreement!!! What I propose for God are our human wishes for a relationship, not His wishes. We can't know those in this one-sided discussion.

DAVID (under “negative theology”): God evolved us for His own reasons. He succeeded in producing us. Perhaps our critique is wrong.

dhw: God succeeded in producing 100 specimens of which 99 had nothing to do with the purpose you impose on him. Perhaps your theory about his purpose is wrong.

Will you never accept the idea that all of evolution is for the purpose of human support? The 90% non-human is for human support. We use all the resources on the planet. Please answer the point.

DAVID: […] the point here is humans appeared unreasonably by natural means. Assuming God in control, we are His favorite goal, to make any sense of our appearance.

dhw: All of life appeared “unreasonably”. Suddenly your God’s “one and only goal” has become his “favorite”, but that is not the point here anyway! The question here is WHY he created life and us. You insist that you know why he created life: to create us. But you reject all the feasible reasons listed above for his creating us. Instead, he is now selfless, so none of our reasons can possibly be valid although you agree that they’re all possible! And your God must be some kind of zombie, creating us thinking, feeling beings without having had any of the thought patterns and emotions which as first cause he’s supposed to have invented from nothing. What a wonderful surprise he must have had when we humans invented love, care, benevolence, not to mention enjoyment and interest which are “clearly, purely and entirely human characteristics”. Oh but hold on, your God is omniscient, isn’t he? How the heck could he have known about all these things if they didn’t come from him?

'Came from Him' does not mean they are His. He can create an individual totally unlike Himself.

dhw:Your non-answer, quoted earlier, is to reverse your agreement that all the "humanizing" proposals are possible and do not make him human: “God is not human and does not have our emotions, while your God is fully human in thought and desires”. The emotions, thoughts and desires were YOUR proposals and are precisely what you agreed were possible without making him human.
You are not disagreeing with me but with yourself. Hence your description of your beliefs as "schizophrenic"!

See explanations above. You are inventing contradictions that do not exist.

dhw: Let’s take an example. In 1918/19 a flu bug killed approximately 50 million people, and infected about a third of the world’s population. Please tell us why you think this bug was necessary.

DAVID: Or why was Covid necessary? I view viruses as necessary for life and occasionally one turns bad. God did not limit their mutation drive for His own reasons. For Covid we learned to vaccinate and it made people survive.

dhw: No need to switch to Covid. You are now saying that your God gave viruses the ability to murder millions of people and you don’t know his reasons. But you have said that you blame him, you won’t tell us why you blame him, and instead you complain that I criticize him!

DAVID: Our Congressional study group now blames nasty Chinese for Covid's invention.

That has been mooted for years and is the reason why my example was the flu that killed 50 million people in 1918/19, which you have now managed to omit.

DAVID: I view it as showing this as a side effect of giving us free will. These side effects are far outweighed by the good works. My blame shows the side effects are God's work.

The flu pandemic had nothing to do with our free will. The theodicy problem concerns the death of 50 million people, and the sufferings of a third of the world’s population. I quote you: “What is fair is to blame God for […] bugs causing diseases.” Blame = to state that someone is responsible for something bad. Whether or not they are “side effects” is irrelevant. Are you or are you not stating that your God was responsible for the deaths of 50 million people? Theodicy asks how one can reconcile this image with that of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God. The problem is his creation of evil, not his creation of good!

DAVID: I am assigning the source of the events. Of course God did them.

So your God is at fault, which can only mean that either you do not regard him as all-good, or you blame him for his incompetence, which knocks out his omnipotence and his omniscience.

Your God's purposes

dhw: […] I see absolutely nothing wrong in your God enjoying, being interested, wanting a relationship, wanting to be recognized and worshipped. You have agreed that these are thought patterns and emotions which he and we may have in common, that they are all possible, and that they do not make him a human being. But next moment you reject them all because you say they are “humanizing”.

DAVID: No disagreement. My thoughts are proposals God might or might not entertain. Stop making them as if written in stone.

Contrast this with your last entry on this post: “God is not human and does not have our emotions, while your God is fully human in thought and desires”.

You agree that YOUR “humanizing” proposals (enjoyment, interest, desire for worship etc.) are possible and do not make your God a human being, but next moment your God cannot have the “humanizing” thoughts and emotions YOU propose, because these would make him a human being! Stop disagreeing with yourself!

DAVID (under “negative theology”): God evolved us for His own reasons. He succeeded in producing us. Perhaps our critique is wrong.

God succeeded in producing 100 specimens of which 99 had nothing to do with the purpose you impose on him. Perhaps your theory about his purpose is wrong.

DAVID: […] the point here is humans appeared unreasonably by natural means. Assuming God in control, we are His favorite goal, to make any sense of our appearance.

dhw: All of life appeared “unreasonably”. Suddenly your God’s “one and only goal” has become his “favorite”, but that is not the point here anyway! The question here is WHY he created life and us. You insist that you know why he created life: to create us. But you reject all the feasible reasons listed above for his creating us. Instead, he is now selfless, so none of our reasons can possibly be valid although you agree that they’re all possible! And your God must be some kind of zombie, creating us thinking, feeling beings without having had any of the thought patterns and emotions which as first cause he’s supposed to have invented from nothing. What a wonderful surprise he must have had when we humans invented love, care, benevolence, not to mention enjoyment and interest which are “clearly, purely and entirely human characteristics”. Oh but hold on, your God is omniscient, isn’t he? How the heck could he have known about all these things if they didn’t come from him?

Your non-answer, quoted earlier, is to reverse your agreement that all the "humanizing" proposals are possible and do not make him human: “God is not human and does not have our emotions, while your God is fully human in thought and desires”. The emotions, thoughts and desires were YOUR proposals and are precisely what you agreed were possible without making him human.
You are not disagreeing with me but with yourself. Hence your description of your beliefs as "schizophrenic"!

Theodicy

DAVID: Or why was Covid necessary? I view viruses as necessary for life and occasionally one turns bad. God did not limit their mutation drive for His own reasons. For Covid we learned to vaccinate and it made people survive.

dhw: No need to switch to Covid. You are now saying that your God gave viruses the ability to murder millions of people and you don’t know his reasons. But you have said that you blame him, you won’t tell us why you blame him, and instead you complain that I criticize him!

Our Congressional study group now blames nasty Chinese for Covid's invention. I view it as showing this as a side effect of giving us free will. These side effects are far outweighed by the good works. My blame shows the side effects are God's work.

Your God's purposes

dhw: You acknowledge that all my alternative theistic explanations of evolution are logical, as are the possible reasons we both give for his wanting to create life and us. (The free-for-all explanation of evil ties in with these, and I do not regard the proposal that God may not be omniscient as a criticism.) I see absolutely nothing wrong in your God enjoying, being interested, wanting a relationship, wanting to be recognized and worshipped. You have agreed that these are thought patterns and emotions which he and we may have in common, that they are all possible, and that they do not make him a human being. But next moment you reject them all because you say they are “humanizing”.

DAVID: God's "enjoying" or being "interested" are clearly purely entirely human characteristics you constantly apply to your vision of a humanized God.

dhw: It is you who first told us you were sure God enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, and I agree that this is a totally feasible reason for his creating life and us. So too are your proposals that he wants us to recognize and worship him. You have said yourself that he must have had a reason, and that he and we probably have thought patterns and emotions in common, and all our proposals are possible. Stop disagreeing with yourself!

No disagreement. My thoughts are proposals God might or might not entertain. Stop making them as if written in stone.

“Wound microbiome aids healing”

DAVID: This research shows that many bacteria are working for the good. This should be remembered when the bad bacteria issue is raised in theodicy discussions.

dhw: Another of your dodges. Nobody is disputing the good! That doesn’t explain the bad!

DAVID: I have explained them as side-effects of the good.

dhw: So your all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and “benevolent” (your description) God knew he was creating viruses that would murder millions of people, but that didn’t matter? Or he was powerless to stop the carnage? Or he wanted the carnage? I’ll remind you again of what you wrote: “What is fair to blame God for natural disasters, earthquakes, terrible storms, and bugs causing diseases.” So please tell us why you blame him.

I am assigning the source of the events. Of course God did them.

What follows has been transferred from “Negative theology” under “Miscellaneous”):

DAVID: The point we can't answer is why God used evolution to create us. Direct creation is much neater.

dhw: The point you can’t answer is why he would have designed and then had to cull 99 out of 100 species over a period of 3.8 billion years if his only purpose was us. There is no problem if your God had a different purpose for using evolution, or if we accept the possibility that he is not omniscient.

God evolved us for His own reasons. He succeeded in producing us. Perhaps our critique is wrong.

Selflessness

DAVID: A God who creates without self-interest is perfectly feasible.

dhw: So please once and for all tell us why you think he created life in general and us in particular.[…]

DAVID: As above, the point here is humans appeared unreasonably by natural means. Assuming God in control, we are His favorite goal, to make any sense of our appearance.

dhw: All of life appeared “unreasonably”. Suddenly your God’s “one and only goal” has become his “favorite”, but that is not the point here anyway! The question here is WHY he created life and us. You insist that you know why he created life: to create us. But you reject all the feasible reasons listed above for his creating us. Instead, he is now selfless, so none of our reasons can possibly be valid although you agree that they’re all possible! And your God must be some kind of zombie, creating us thinking, feeling beings without having had any of the thought patterns and emotions which as first cause he’s supposed to have invented from nothing. What a wonderful surprise he must have had when we humans invented love, care, benevolence, not to mention enjoyment and interest which are “clearly, purely and entirely human characteristics”. Oh but hold on, your God is omniscient, isn’t he? How the heck could he have known about all these things if they didn’t come from him?

God is not human and does not have our emotions, while your God is fully human in thought and desires.

DAVID: 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: You still haven't told us why you blame him. What are the evil bugs necessary for? Let’s take an example. In 1918/19 a flu bug killed approximately 50 million people, and infected about a third of the world’s population. Please tell us why you think this bug was necessary.

DAVID: Or why was Covid necessary? I view viruses as necessary for life and occasionally one turns bad. God did not limit their mutation drive for His own reasons. For Covid we learned to vaccinate and it made people survive.

No need to switch to Covid. You are now saying that your God gave viruses the ability to murder millions of people and you don’t know his reasons. But you have said that you blame him, you won’t tell us why you blame him, and instead you complain that I criticize him!

Your God's purposes

dhw: You acknowledge that all my alternative theistic explanations of evolution are logical, as are the possible reasons we both give for his wanting to create life and us. (The free-for-all explanation of evil ties in with these, and I do not regard the proposal that God may not be omniscient as a criticism.) I see absolutely nothing wrong in your God enjoying, being interested, wanting a relationship, wanting to be recognized and worshipped. You have agreed that these are thought patterns and emotions which he and we may have in common, that they are all possible, and that they do not make him a human being. But next moment you reject them all because you say they are “humanizing”.

DAVID: God's "enjoying" or being "interested" are clearly purely entirely human characteristics you constantly apply to your vision of a humanized God.

It is you who first told us you were sure God enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, and I agree that this is a totally feasible reason for his creating life and us. So too are your proposals that he wants us to recognize and worship him. You have said yourself that he must have had a reason, and that he and we probably have thought patterns and emotions in common, and all our proposals are possible. Stop disagreeing with yourself!

“Wound microbiome aids healing”

DAVID: This research shows that many bacteria are working for the good. This should be remembered when the bad bacteria issue is raised in theodicy discussions.

dhw: Another of your dodges. Nobody is disputing the good! That doesn’t explain the bad!

DAVID: I have explained them as side-effects of the good.

So your all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and “benevolent” (your description) God knew he was creating viruses that would murder millions of people, but that didn’t matter? Or he was powerless to stop the carnage? Or he wanted the carnage? I’ll remind you again of what you wrote: “What is fair to blame God for natural disasters, earthquakes, terrible storms, and bugs causing diseases.” So please tell us why you blame him.

What follows has been transferred from “Negative theology” under “Miscellaneous”):

DAVID: The point we can't answer is why God used evolution to create us. Direct creation is much neater.

The point you can’t answer is why he would have designed and then had to cull 99 out of 100 species over a period of 3.8 billion years if his only purpose was us. There is no problem if your God had a different purpose for using evolution, or if we accept the possibility that he is not omniscient.

Selflessness

DAVID: A God who creates without self-interest is perfectly feasible.

dhw: So please once and for all tell us why you think he created life in general and us in particular.[…]

DAVID: As above, the point here is humans appeared unreasonably by natural means. Assuming God in control, we are His favorite goal, to make any sense of our appearance.

All of life appeared “unreasonably”. Suddenly your God’s “one and only goal” has become his “favorite”, but that is not the point here anyway! The question here is WHY he created life and us. You insist that you know why he created life: to create us. But you reject all the feasible reasons listed above for his creating us. Instead, he is now selfless, so none of our reasons can possibly be valid although you agree that they’re all possible! And your God must be some kind of zombie, creating us thinking, feeling beings without having had any of the thought patterns and emotions which as first cause he’s supposed to have invented from nothing. What a wonderful surprise he must have had when we humans invented love, care, benevolence, not to mention enjoyment and interest which are “clearly, purely and entirely human characteristics”. Oh but hold on, your God is omniscient, isn’t he? How the heck could he have known about all these things if they didn’t come from him?

Theodicy

DAVID: 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: You still haven't told us why you blame him. What are the evil bugs necessary for? Let’s take an example. In 1918/19 a flu bug killed approximately 50 million people, and infected about a third of the world’s population. Please tell us why you think this bug was necessary.

Or why was Covid necessary? I view viruses as necessary for life and occasionally one turns bad. God did not limit their mutation drive for His own reasons. For Covid we learned to vaccinate and it made people survive.

dhw: I don’t even know if your God exists, and my questions are not criticisms of him but of your illogical theories and blatant contradictions, which result in you ridiculing him as inefficient (use of evolution, see under “negative evolution” on the miscellany thread), trying to minimize the problem of evil, blaming him for all the natural disasters and bugs but exonerating him as above, or arguing that your omnipotent, omniscient God was neither powerful nor knowledgeable enough to create a world without such problems. You acknowledge that all my alternative theistic explanations of evolution are logical, as are the possible reasons we both give for his wanting to create life and us. (The free-for-all explanation of evil ties in with these, and I do not regard the proposal that God may not be omniscient as a criticism.) I see absolutely nothing wrong in your God enjoying, being interested, wanting a relationship, wanting to be recognized and worshipped. You have agreed that these are thought patterns and emotions which he and we may have in common, that they are all possible, and that they do not make him a human being. But next moment you reject them all because you say they are “humanizing”.

God's "enjoying" or being "interested" are clearly purely entirely human characteristics you constantly apply to your vision of a humanized God.

dhw: The rest of your post simply repeats all these illogicalities and contradictions, as summed up by your concluding remark:

DAVID: 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..

dhw: It is you who proposed that his reasons for creating us might be his wanting a relationship, recognition and worship. You also proposed that he enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations. That is your “humanized” form. We agree that we have no way of knowing his desires, but you still insist that you know his one and only desire (to create us plus food). You agree that all your proposals and mine are possible, and that having human-like patterns of thought and emotions do not make God a two-legged mammal. You wrote “Let’s leave it at that”, but you won’t.

Late addition:
“Wound microbiome aids healing”

DAVID: This research shows that many bacteria are working for the good. This should be remembered when the bad bacteria issue is raised in theodicy discussions.

dhw: Another of your dodges. Nobody is disputing the good! That doesn’t explain the bad!

I have explained them as side-effects of the good.