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

by dhw, Monday, May 06, 2024, 11:03 (199 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

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.

DAVID: 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.
And:
DAVID: At the God level of reality what do our words mean as to God's personality?? Only 'allegorical' fits.

“How do they apply?” is the correct question, i.e. is it or is it not true that your God wants to be worshipped? That has nothing whatsoever to do with the meaning of the word “worship”, which is perfectly clear to both of us.

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”)?

You still haven't told us the "rules".

DAVID: Allegorical meanings are the only way to describe God!!

So your theologians tell you that words like worship, selfless, love, omnipotent, omniscient, all-good, enjoy might not mean what we think they mean! It’s nonsense. We invented the words, so how can they mean something we didn’t mean? The question is whether they are true of your God – not whether he thinks they have a different meaning!!!

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.

dhw: 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.

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

It’s YOU who describe your God’s method as messy, cumbersome and inefficient! None of my alternatives have him messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently having to design 99.9 out of 100 species irrelevant to his one and only purpose.

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.

DAVID: Your usual unanswerable ploy. I don't read God's mind. 'Morally sufficient' is theoretical reason for God's actions.
And:
DAVID: For the faithful morally sufficient is enough answer!!!

It would be, if you could provide us with a morally sufficient reason. Having agreed with me that Plantinga’s theory (the evil is justified because in his own self-centred way he wanted us to love him of our own free will), all you have come up with is that the evil is justified because he didn’t want himself or us to be bored. In his case, again self-centred, and in our case you have agreed that we can lead interesting lives without raping and murdering one another.

DAVID: We cannot know God's reasoning! You fight allegorical for no logical reason.

"Your usual ploy." It’s true that we cannot know God’s reasoning, just as we cannot know his true nature. Therefore it is absurd to claim that “He has some sort of personality, certainly not human in any sense.” For example, either he wants us to worship him or he doesn’t. Nothing to do with “allegory”.