Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy (Evolution)

by David Turell , Sunday, April 21, 2024, 22:45 (12 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Until you can explain why your God would have deliberately, ”messily” and “inefficiently” (your description) designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to what you claim was his sole purpose, what you claim is the “proper view” of evolution will continue to be the sick joke.

It is your sick joke of a distortion. Raup showed us 99.9% loss was required to evolve the surviving 0.1%

DAVID: All Raup said was 0.1% are the living result!!!

dhw: Thank you. That is what I keep repeating, so stop pretending that Raup supports your wacky theory and that I am distorting Raup!

DAVID: You are distorting Raup.

dhw: I only know what you tell me, and you have told me that Raup does NOT tell us his God deliberately designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species irrelevant to his one and only purpose because that’s what he had to do. Please respond to the arguments instead of focusing on what Raup does and doesn’t say.

Your irrational invention of Raup's view causes all of this repeated discussion.

dhw: I have offered you three theistic purposes to explain the 99.9% (experimentation, learning process with new ideas, free-for-all), and although they explain the history, you reject them all because you they don’t fit in with your wishes.

DAVID: Yes, I want my God I wish for.

dhw: And that explains why you defend a theory which makes no sense even to you, and you reject any alternative. All credit to you for your honesty: “I first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” That is no doubt the cause of all the illogicalities and contradictions.

DAVID: it is because I make choices and you refuse to.

The reason for your illogicalities and contradictions is that you offer theories which are so illogical and contradictory that you are constantly forced to admit that only God would be able to understand them because you can’t. Examples: Your all-powerful, all-knowing designer is forced to use a messy, inefficient way of designing the only things he wants to design; your selfless God wants to be recognized and worshipped, and is all-good, although he allows human evil in order to alleviate his boredom. He is also “to blame” (your word) for natural evils, which despite his omnipotence he is powerless to prevent, although he does his best.

The usual inventions. God's free will allows human evil. WE can only assume God wants us to recognize him and worship Him. Don't blame Him for our thoughts. Stop blaming me for not knowing God's reasoning for His actions. I know what God did but can only guess as to why.

dhw: […] Please tell us as briefly as possible what evidence you have found, for instance, that your God is omniscient, has the same moral standards as ours, and is all-good. […].

DAVID: From biochemical design I see a massive mind.

dhw: Massive knowledge of one subject does not = total knowledge of all subjects. You have no evidence of omniscience, but it is your assumption that your wish is reality.

DAVID: My faith dictates my view reality.

dhw: You had claimed that your faith was based on evidence. Not much evidence here. I suggest that your earlier explanation was more accurate: that you “first choose a God you wish to believe in. The rest follows.”

Don't forget the first think I did was to read Adler's "How to think about God" with a choice of a form of God to follow.

dhw: How do you know [God] is all-good by your own standards of goodness?

DAVID: I take all-goodness as by definition.

dhw: Since nobody knows God, how can anyone possibly define his attributes with any authority? […] would you regard your God’s desire to relieve his and our boredom as “all-good” moral justification for the millions of people who have died or suffered from the evil he allowed to happen (human evil) or caused to happen (he is to blame for the natural evils)?

DAVID: Ancient Hebrew philosophy of Dayenu, it is enough, is the theodistic answer.

dhw: I didn’t realize that “dayenu” actually meant “I can’t answer your questions, so I’ll dodge them.”

DAVID: If you fully understood 'dayenu' that should not have been your response.

dhw: My response was ironic. “It is enough” is not a “theodistic answer” to my question. It is blatant dodging of my question.

If you knew 'dayenu' my response is sufficient. God has done enough and need not do more! You are so negative toward God, Dayenu is not an issue for you.