Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO (Evolution)

by David Turell , Saturday, May 06, 2023, 21:22 (565 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: It is amazing to me that you cannot see how human is your preferred form of God. I am simppy following the rules my instructor, Adler, gave to me in his book, "How to Think About God."

dhw: It is amazing to me that first you try to reject my alternatives because most religions would reject them, and in the same breath you tell us that you reject most religions and have your own brand of theism. It is equally amazing to me that you call your God inefficient, cumbersome and messy, and regard this as being less human and more godlike than my alternatives, which show him doing precisely what he wants to do. And it is amazing to me that while you are certain your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, this somehow makes him more “selfless” than my alternatives, which have him enjoying creating and being interested in his creations. As for Adler, you keep telling us that he does NOT cover your illogical theories, so please stop blaming him for all the messy bits and pieces that don’t make any sense to anyone (except, apparently, God).

I accept that the OT presents an accurate account of ancient Jewish history. Recent rabbis have softened God's image as portrayed. That is my starting point in my approach to God. Then I use Adler, a very prominent philosopher of religion, to guide me as to "How To Think About God", his book. All the rest emanates from my own research and analysis. Therefore, Adler is a basis, so he would have no idea of what I present here, unless he were alive and following us. That applies to the rest of humanity, religious or not. As for your skewed view of God's evolution, we must accept that God chose a cumbersome prolonged process for His own reasons. You've told us direct creation is more sensible. God should have listened to you.

DAVID: Like most believers I accept what God does without question.

dhw: I had no idea that most believers believe that God deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose, and his method of design was inefficient, cumbersome and messy. I expect most believers would be quite surprised that this is what they are supposed to believe.

DAVID: I did not infer believers know my personal theories which have been presented here.

dhw: So what is the point in your telling us that most believers accept what God does without question? Clearly, then, you are now telling us that most believers don’t even know your theories about what God does, let alone accept them. And yet you dismiss my alternatives on the grounds that most religions would reject them!

Based on Adler's instruction's, you have no concept of how to think about God.

DAVID: I'll stick with God chose His method of creation for His own, unknown to us, reasons. As for His thought patterns and emotions we have discussed they are allegorical. He may think as we do but His results might surprise us.

dhw: I have no doubt that if God exists, he had his own purpose and method for creation. That does not mean his purpose and method were the ones which you have chosen for him, and which show him to be an inefficient, cumbersome and messy designer. As for thought patterns and emotions, YOU know what you mean when you say he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations; these words are not “allegories”, and if he may think as we do, then it may be that one or other of my logical alternative explanations of evolution’s history is correct. You certainly can’t dismiss them on the grounds that although he may think as we do, he doesn’t think as we do.

DAVID: Exactly, God thinks in a similar fashion, but not precisely as we do.

dhw: Nobody knows how God thinks (if he exists). If you believe he thinks in a similar fashion to us, how does that support your theories, which make no sense even to you (you can't think of any reasons why he would act the way you make him act), and how does it invalidate my theories, which make perfect sense to both of us but to which you object on the grounds that they make him more human than the cumbersome, inefficient blunderer you envisage?

I do not see God as an inefficient blunderer. That is your distortion of my presentation to try to explain why He used evolution. That distortion includes the now red accusation above. I accept God's actions without question, while all you do is endless questioning, most of which have no answers but can be accepted on faith.