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

by David Turell , Tuesday, May 07, 2024, 19:39 (12 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 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: ... for the meaning of words, we humans invented them all, and we know precisely what we mean by them. It’s not a matter of whether God translates these words into some Godese language that means something totally different. It’s simply a matter of whether they do or don’t apply to him. Does he desire to be worshipped/recognized/loved, enjoy creation, not want to be bored, have thought patterns and emotions like ours - or doesn’t he? In the past, you have suggested ALL of these. But then in one fell swoop, you reject them all: His personality is “certainly not human in any sense”. HOW DO YOU KNOW?

HOW DO YOU KNOW He is in any sense human? What God does is only for His purposes which do not include self-gratifying thoughts or desires.

dhw: What rules are you following, that make you reject your own proposals (“certainly not human in any sense”)?

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

dhw: Nobody in his right mind would think that an immortal, infinite, sourceless, universal mind that can create universes is a person like us. That doesn’t mean he can’t have thought patterns like ours, and it doesn’t mean that the descriptive terms we have invented can have a different meaning from the one we give them. The question is whether they apply to him. Now please tell us the rules that force you to reject your own proposals.

We have both agreed, our words have exact meanings for us. Applied to God, what do they mean then as directly applied to Him? No one can know.

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: 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.

dhw: It is YOU who denigrate him, by insisting that your God specially designed and culled 99.9 irrelevant species, which YOU describe as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient way of achieving the purpose YOU impose on him.

Your usual irrational contortion. Every step in evolution was necessary to produce the present result. It is your obvious attempt to denigrate God.

Theodicy

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.

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

dhw: So how does that justify your theories that (a) evil has resulted from his desire to avoid boredom but he doesn’t want to avoid boredom, and (b) that evil was necessary to stop us from getting bored although evil wasn’t necessary to prevent boredom, and (c) we can’t read your God’s mind, but you know he is not self-centred although you think he might want to be recognized and worshipped, and (d) you know he doesn’t do anything for enjoyment although you are certain that he enjoys creating etc. Your whole messed-up “theology” is encapsulated by your two statements that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, but he is certainly not human in any sense. And the endless contradictions stem from your self-confessed approach to all matters concerning your God’s purpose, method and nature: ”I first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.”

I find all this both sad and surprising, because having worked with you on your excellent book “The Atheist Delusion”, I have the utmost admiration for your breadth of learning and the logical case you build for the existence of a designer. But post after post on this forum, you turn your back on logic and rely on faith in irrational and confusing theories. You also criticize atheists for precisely the same approach as your own: they first choose a theory they wish to believe in, and the rest follows. It’s what we call double standards.

All the standards I use are mine. I see God as a selfless producer of our reality. My guesses as His thoughts are answers to your constantly probing questions which are purposely posed as being really not answerable. I represent my God in my way, and you will not be able to dig out a view of God you seem to be wishing for. My God produces this reality from purpose, not any self-desires involved, other than a successful result of His evolutionary work.