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

by dhw, Sunday, May 05, 2024, 09:26 (200 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

dhw: 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: Your question exposes the problem. We don't know if God resembles us in any way.

So why do you say “certainly not human in any sense”? Once more you contradict yourself.

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

dhw: 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: Same obstacle in your thinking. We cannot know how or if our descriptive terms can somehow apply to God, who is not human.[…]

And from “More miscellany”:

DAVID: Does God need or wish to be worshipped? All we can accept is maybe.

Of course we can’t know, and therefore it is absurd for you to say that his personality is “certainly not human in any way”, and to propose that the words you use to denote his possible characteristics and purposes might not mean what you and I think they mean. YOU propose that he might have created us because he wants us to recognize and worship him. But when I point out that this contradicts your belief that he has no self-interest, you hide behind your nebulous “allegorical thought”. And you claim that theologians support you! So what are all the churches, synagogues and mosques (places of “worship”), vicars, bishops, archbishops, rabbis, imams etc. devoted to, as they lead their congregations into praising God and thanking him for his marvellous works? Are they all thinking to themselves that God might not want them to do this, because worship is “allegorical” and it might not mean the same to him as it does to them? What rules are you following, that make you reject your own proposals (“certainly not human in any sense”)?

Evolution

DAVID: How God conduced evolution is part of my analysis of history as God's work. I reject your analysis of evolution as God shucking things He didn't want. I view all of evolution as God's purposeful result.

But you can’t explain why he would have designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose - a theory which you have told us Adler does not even mention.

DAVID: To the contrary, Adler used natural (Darwinian) evolution to show the appearance of humans proved God must exist. Nature could not produce us naturally. Adler and I had the same 'culling' view.

For the thousandth time, the dispute is not over Adler’s proof that God exists, but over your belief bolded above. Stop dodging.

Theodicy

DAVID: […] what God produced was from a morally sufficient reason. Life requires those bugs. These is no blame, accept as you imagine it.

dhw: 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…”[/b]

DAVID: Pick and choose statements out of context, your usual ploy. The issue was human boredom in Eden, not GOD'S. we do not know if God can be bored!!!

You agreed that, in addition to our own potential boredom, your God would have found puppets boring, and so he gave us free will, which enables us to commit evil (although boredom can be avoided without evil). I asked why you “blamed” your God for the murderous bugs, and to tell us the “morally sufficient reason” that would justify the havoc.

DAVID: Ask God. Morally sufficient is a human concept to explain God's actions. Your usual ploy is a dodge asking for God's reasons.

That is not what I ask for. YOU propose theories of inefficient evolution and morally justified rape, murder and slaughter, and I ask you to give YOUR reasons for your illogical and contradictory theories.

DAVID: For believers it is enough to assume God had good reason. As an outsider you still don't know how to think about God in an acceptable way. Allegorical meanings must be used.

But you can’t think of any reason, and so you tell me to ask God to defend your theories. Only God knows how we should think about him in an “acceptable” way, and I’ve dealt with your “allegorical” nonsense above.