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

by dhw, Saturday, May 04, 2024, 07:47 (14 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Theologians have NOT taught me to invent my own God!!

dhw: You said humans invent the God they want, and you first choose the God you want, and “the rest follows”. Since this is your approach, I can only assume this is what they have taught you to do. If it isn’t, why are you doing it?

DAVID: I am NOT doing what you misinterpret. I read theologian guidelines to make my own choice of a God.

And presumably you chose which “guidelines” you wished to follow, then like every other human believer, you invented the God you wanted. You can call it “chose”, if you like. It makes no difference, since nobody KNOWS the real God – if he exists.

DAVID: […] They have taught me to think about God as a 'personage like no other person'.

dhw: If they tell you he is a unique personage (which means an important human being), then that allows for human attributes (which you have agreed he probably has). He can love/hate, be interested/bored, nice/nasty etc. But no person is eternal and immortal, sourceless and immaterial, and able to create universes and bacteria etc. Of course he's unique (if he exists).

DAVID: The word personage was used allegorically as applied to God to indicate He has some sort of personality, certainly not human in any sense.

How in heaven’s name do you - who think he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours - know for certain that he does not have thought patterns and emotions like ours? How do you know for certain that he doesn’t love you, enjoy creating, or want to be worshipped?

DAVID: There are rules to follow like allegorical thought which bother you so much, as just below:

dhw: Only your God can “make rules” about God! And there is no “allegory” or symbolism in the above attributes. We both know what we mean by enjoy, love, interest etc. An “allegorical” God would be an invented symbol like Faithful and Hopeful in Pilgrim’s Progress.

DAVID: You must handle those words allegorically, but you can't make yourself accept it. You are fighting the training I received. Open your illogically closed mind.
And:
DAVID: My theology is a system of thoughts and theories and beliefs that hang together logically for me, by the rules I follow. Since you don't know the rules, you don't follow my conclusions.

Yes indeed, I am fighting what you call your training. What rules compel you to invent/choose an inefficient designer God who probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours but can’t possibly have thought patterns and emotions like ours, who might want to be worshipped but can’t possibly want to be worshipped, who certainly enjoys but can’t possibly enjoy etc., all because when you choose to use those words, they can’t possibly mean what you mean by them?

DAVID: I do not WANT my God to HAVE humans as His purpose! That is a logical conclusion from the known facts about evolution as to His purpose and Adler supports me.

dhw: But you attach this "logical conclusion" to your belief that your God also inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. Does Adler support you?

DAVID: Your same old tired complaint. God chose to evolve us. That is history assuming God in charge.

As usual, you leave out the 99.9% of species which did not lead to us plus food but which your God "chose to evolve" (= specially design) and to cull – a theory which you have told us Adler does not even mention, and which only your God can explain. One of your familiar dodges.

dhw: You want your God to be all-powerful, all-knowing and all good, and so you come up against the problem of theodicy.

DAVID: The theodicy standard answer is proportionality…

You cannot solve the problem of evil by saying there is more good than evil!

DAVID: The answer to theodicy is given: what God produced was from a morally sufficient reason. Life requires those bugs. These is no blame, accept as you imagine it.

You have forgotten the “if”: IF God had a morally sufficient reason for allowing/creating evil, then it would be justified. All you’ve proposed is that he and we would be bored without it, but his not wanting to be bored makes him self-centred, which is against your self-imposed “rules”. As regards murderous bugs you wrote: “What is fair is to blame God for natural disasters: earthquakes, terrible storms, and bugs causing diseases[/i]…”

DAVID (taken from “More miscellany”): Blame in sense because they are His true invention.

Just as our free will is his “true invention”. So he knew his two true inventions would lead to rape, murder, and millions of painful deaths. I can understand why you think it’s fair to blame him. And I’m still waiting to hear the “morally sufficient reason” that would justify the havoc.