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

by David Turell , Monday, May 06, 2024, 17:28 (199 days ago) @ dhw

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

dhw: “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.

Worship is a word about God's desires, not His personality. No problem with it, but look at personal words, joy, love, boredom, all about His personality. We do not know how they apply directly to God as we understand them..

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”)?

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

Simple. God is a personage like no other person. Descriptive terms must be used allegorically.

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

dhw: 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!!!

Of course, those words have a known meaning at the human level, but when applied to God we must assume they may apply differently, allegorically.

Evolution

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!

dhw: 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.

Same old distortion. Evolution statistically produced 99.9% extinctions. So what!! A natural result of choices and cullings by nature or by God. You try to turn 99.9% into an awful result. It is beyond an irrational attempt to muddy the waters to denigrate the God I decribe..

Theodicy

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!!!

dhw: 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.

Same tortured request. No one can read God's mind!!!

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

dhw: "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”.

Same confusion. God's wants are not descriptions of His personality and therefore not allegorical!!! Descriptive terms for personality traits must be allegorical. Two levels of meaning!