dhw: Why do you think he would deliberately have designed 99% of “novelties” (strange forms) that had no connection with us if his only purpose was to design the 1% that would lead to us?***

DAVID: My defense is whatever God does is OK with me. I don't need His reasons, only you do.

But you insist on giving him just one reason for creating life: to design us and our food – hence the question*** which you keep dodging. The existence of the 99% is history. So maybe the reason for their existence is not what you say it is.

DAVID: The food is a giant bush of life created by God's method of evolutionary creation. We are at the current end point.

dhw: If God exists, this is perfectly logical. It does not answer question ***.

DAVID: Yes it does. Using God's evolutionary method resulted in a necessary loss of 0.1% of all previous forms to the present.

Your theory means losing 99.9% of specially designed forms, with only 0.1% leading to our food. Hence the question *** which you keep dodging.

DAVID: It is my contention and Adler's that humans are so unusual only a special creation by God could have produced them.

dhw: It is also your contention that all life is so complex that only a special creation by God could have produced it. This does not answer the question ***.

DAVID: […] Evolution is a drive to complexity.

That does not answer question***

DAVID: The giant food supply, provided by God, is barely sufficient, as shown by starvation on the world. Your *** is specious reasoning.

No one would deny the problem of starvation. That has nothing to do with the question ***. Please stop this silly game. You believe in a bit of non-sense, produce one non-sequitur after another, and refuse to consider any logical alternatives.

DAVID: Not nonsense but more careful reasoning than yours. […]

Your careful reasoning has led you to admit: “The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation.” That is the question *** which you keep dodging because you know the theory is non-sense.

Evolution and Theodicy

I am combining your answers on this thread with those in Miscellany Part One.

dhw: How do you know that your all-powerful God was incapable of creating a Garden of Eden?

DAVID: He wasn't incapable. He chose differently. Eden without competition was a dead end.

dhw: Since when was “competition” synonymous with “evil”? Do you think the world would come to an end if we didn’t have war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease?

DAVID: Reference was to the Biblical Garden of Eden, not the whole present world.

Eden is an image for a world without evil. Please answer the question. Meanwhile,Your two answers to the problem of theodicy are:

dhw: (1) forget about evil, which is only a minor matter, or (2) despite being all-powerful, he had no choice. You also conveniently forget your own belief that your God would have created what he wanted to create. So we have two puzzles now: Why would an all-good God want to create evil, and why would an all-powerful God be powerless to prevent evil?

Your only answer is to repeat that bacteria etc. are 99% good, which means we should avoid the problem.

DAVID: I can do no better.

You can’t answer the question ***, and you refuse to face the problem of evil, but you praise your own careful reasoning and stick to your irrational beliefs.

dhw: […] one of your theories concerning theodicy is that your God deliberately sacrificed control of bugs and humans. A possible answer to the question*** which leaves you floundering is that your God may also have given up control of speciation.
This would provide a logical alternative to the theory that leads to question ***. […]

DAVID: […] Your theistic logic is always to humanize God.

dhw: Enjoyment and interest, experimenting, getting new ideas, creating a free-for-all are no more human than your messy, inefficient version of his methods, or his desire for total control. They have the added advantage of answering the question*** which you cannot answer, and which you desperately try to dodge with one non sequitur after another.

DAVID: A God who is always acting purposely with set goals is my view of a consistently theistic God as most philosophers of theism accept.

And if he exists, I accept that too, and my theistic alternatives offer purposeful action and goals. I do not accept your non-answers to question ***, and to the problem of theodicy.

dhw: A God who deliberately allows freedom of design, just as he allows freedom of action, is not “godless”.

DAVID: Not any God recognized in the literature. Your personal skewed view.

In what literature do you find your messy, inefficient designer, or your all-good God deliberately and knowingly creating evil because a Garden of Eden would have been a dead end, or your all-powerful God being powerless to prevent it? Why don’t you stick to the arguments?

DAVID: Dead end explained.

dhw: Not explained. Why would peaceful cooperation and inventive methods of exploiting different environments without war, murder, rape, floods, famines and diseases be a dead end?