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

by dhw, Tuesday, April 16, 2024, 11:40 (13 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I've logically answered your strange misconstruction of the evolutionary process.

dhw: Your only answer to the question why your God would have deliberately designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to the one and only purpose you impose on him is that you can’t be expected to know God’s reason for such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient way of achieving his goal.

DAVID: That contorted answer is not mine. Evolution requires a culling process, which you seem to condemn. God produced us on Earth with all of its resources at our command. Pure history.

If God exists, he made the rules, and I do not believe for one second that he would have told himself: “In order to achieve thy purpose, thou must first design and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with thy purpose.” Yes, he would have produced us in one way or another, but he also produced the other 99.9% which you can’t explain, and they are pure history too. So maybe your messy, inefficient theory about purpose and method is wrong.

dhw: You accused me of avoiding God by saying we are not special. Both accusations are manifestly untrue. My criticism of your wacky theory does not entail any “distorted view” on my part unless you have changed your theory since yesterday.

DAVID: Your evolutionary statistics are total misrepresentations of Raup's book.

dhw: You have told us Raup calculates that 99.9% of species are extinct, but you have informed us that he does not subscribe to your theory, as bolded above. Please give us your own arguments instead of hiding behind Raup.

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

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 dodged any discussion of purpose!

dhw:[…] . We have discussed “purpose” ad nauseam. You have no idea what purpose your God could have had in designing the irrelevant 99.9%. 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.

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.

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: […] Very complex living biochemistry requires God's omniscience. I can only assume God knew of human productions.

dhw: Omniscience means knowledge of everything! I ask for evidence, and you admit that you can only assume he knows everything.

DAVID: From biochemical design I see a massive mind.

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.

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? This is another assumption on your part, and if our world is the “reality He produced”, you cannot ignore the evil which he allowed to take place in it. In line with your latest theory, 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.

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