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

by David Turell , Sunday, May 05, 2024, 17:31 (13 days ago) @ dhw

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.[…]

dhw; And from “More miscellany”:

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

dhw: 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.

Can't you see the words are applied at two levels! Our level is our discussion. We know exactly what we mean. But at the God level, how do they apply? You concentrate on just our level and insist on staying there. Note the next thought:

dhw: 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!

Itis not a claim, but what they really teach. At the God level of reality what do our words mean as to God's personality?? Only 'allegorical' fits. Note your confusion below:

dhw: 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”)?

Allegorical meanings are the only way to describe God!!

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.

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

The true dodge is your contorted/invented view of evolution making God the fool!

Theodicy

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!!!

dhw: 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.

Your usual unanswerable ploy. I don't read God's mind. 'Morally sufficient' is theoretical reason for God's actions.

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. As below:

dhw: 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.

For the faithful morally sufficient is enough answer!!!

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.

dhw; 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.

Your usual ploy. We cannot know God's reasoning! You fight allegorical for no logical reason.