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

by David Turell , Wednesday, May 08, 2024, 18:30 (11 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 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: I don’t even know if he exists, and if he does, I have no more knowledge about his purposes, methods or nature than you have. That is why I have focused entirely on your OWN proposals, as listed above. And now you pretend to know that he has no self-gratifying thoughts or desires. But you refuse to acknowledge that this guess is a direct contradiction of your earlier guesses.

All guesses, no substance!!! You can't assume I know God intimately! I start with a concept of a God who is selfless, who creates with purpose, satisfying no particular 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.
And:
DAVID: 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.

dhw: We can agree that if God exists, he is not a human being. As far as words are concerned, we humans invented them, and we know precisely what they mean. There is no “allegory”. But we don’t know whether they apply to him – i.e. does he want to be worshipped, does he enjoy, is he interested etc.? Now please tell us what “rules” you follow that make you reject your own proposals.

See above. All words we know apply allegorically to God.

Evolution

dhw: For the thousandth time, the dispute is not over Adler’s proof that God exists, but over your belief bolded above. […]

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

dhw: You have repeatedly agreed that 99.9% of species did NOT lead to the present result, which is the product of the 0.1% of lines that survived. That is why YOU denigrate your God’s method of fulfilling the purpose you impose on him as messy, cumbersome and inefficient. I am not denigrating your God by pointing out that your illogical theory denigrates your God!

Your distortion of God's evolutionary process denigrates God, whether you mean to or not.

Theodicy

dhw […] 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 in 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.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: If God exists, it is reasonable to assume that he had a purpose for creating life. Nobody “knows” anything, but if you present us with theories, you can hardly expect me to ignore them, or to swallow them whole. You gave honest answers to my questions, and it’s not my fault if you keep contradicting yourself.

I don't contradict. You distort the conclusions.

DAVID: 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.

dhw; I don’t wish for any form of God. It is you who “first choose a God I wish to believe in, The rest follows.” I do, however, offer alternative theories to your own, which even you have recognized as logical explanations for the history of evolution. But they involve thought patterns and emotions like ours, which you have agreed he probably has (and my explanations are even based on some of the patterns you suggest), but which you now say he certainly doesn’t have (his personality is “certainly not human in any sense”). And for some reason, you blame all your contradictions and illogical arguments on me!

You ask me to explain God and ask pointed questions as if I directly represent a known God. I represent my version of my God, a selfless producer of the reality He wishes to produce.