Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, March 01, 2024, 13:50 (57 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Why should I know exactly the ideas in God's mind?

dhw: You don’t. But you should be able to find some kind of reason for believing in the ideas you try to insert into your God’s mind, e.g. your fixed belief that he only wanted us and our food and therefore messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species (e.g. dinosaurs) that had nothing to do with us and our food.

DAVID: My purposes for God's actions are that He wished to produced humans and all the recourses they would need. He then evolved every organism on Earth. A very logical conclusion based on current populations of species.

You are simply repeating your theory that his one and only purpose was to produce us and current species, and so he proceeded to produce every species that ever lived, 99.9% of which had no connection with us and current species. So he culled them. Where is the “logic”? You can’t find any, but this is your fixed belief, and you say you can’t be expected to know why your God would choose the messy, cumbersome, inefficient method you impose on him in order to achieve the purpose you impose on him, as you admit in your next entry:

dhw: So are you saying that God designed each species of dinosaur as an experiment? If not, in what way could the dinosaurs have “come from” a degree of “autonomous experimentation”.

DAVID: Same problem: I don't know why God would produce so many species.

And furthermore, having told us that dinosaurs may have come from a degree of “autonomous experimentation”, you are trying to dodge the implications, which of course link up with two of the alternative theistic theories I have offered you in order to explain the 99.9% of species which make your own theory so illogical.

Purpose

dhw: Quite uniquely, disregarding any definition you will find in any dictionary, by “allegorical” you mean: is the description right or wrong?

DAVID: Dictionary: "a figurative or symbolic way of representing ideas or emotions." This is my use.

dhw: It’s NOT your use! The words “worship, recognize, relationship, enjoy, interest” are not figurative or symbolic. They have fixed meanings which we both know, and you have agreed that the issue is whether your God does or doesn’t enjoy, have an interest, want us to worship, recognize, have a relationship. Please stop making a mockery of language.

DAVID: The dictionary tells us we must use the words in a "figurative or symbolic way"!!!

This is getting really silly. “Worshipping God” would mean showing him respect, love admiration etc. There is no symbol, no figurative meaning. A pilgrim named Christian finds himself in the Slough of Despond (= swamp of depression) - that is an example of allegory: the character is a symbol for all Christians, his "Pilgrim's Progress" symbolizes the struggle for salvation, the swamp symbolizes the despair of folk who recognize how inadequate they are. Please stop your absurd distortions of language.

DAVID: I had no idea how to think ab out God until I read Adler. You and I don't think alike now at all about God's possible personality, especially because He is not s personage.

dhw: I have just agreed that all your above suggestions are perfectly feasible. I doubt very much that Adler taught you that “autonomous” means dependent on God’s instructions, “allegorical” means correct or incorrect, “wanting to be worshipped” means without self-interest, God is all good so long as we ignore the problem of evil, and God deliberately, messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with the only species he wanted to design. Please stop blaming Adler for your illogical attempts to justify your various self-contradictions.

DAVID: The theology I developed is based on Adler's instructions. I doubt Adler and I fully agree on a theology itself.

I can only discuss the theology you propose, regardless of who taught you what. So please stop hiding behind Adler – he is irrelevant if he does not offer support for the above absurdities.