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

by dhw, Tuesday, May 21, 2024, 12:02 (184 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I have been taught by a world-famous philosopher of religion, a ranking theologian. I am proud to have taken the time to learn this approach when deciding to leave agnosticism. Your alternatives are colored by your own humanism with no theological training.

dhw: Has Adler taught you that your God’s use of evolution is messy, cumbersome and inefficient? Stop dodging.

DAVID: You still don't understand. Adler only teaches how to think about God, the personage. Not His acttons.

Then stop pretending that your theories (inefficient design) and contradictory suggestions (might want to be worshipped but has no self-interest) are supported by Adler, let alone all theologians.

DAVID: I am logically following instructions of which you are ignorant.
And:
DAVID: I have been given strict attributes, contrary to your approach above, without any guidelines.

What instructions, strict attributes and guidelinss have ordered you to blatantly contradict yourself, as above? Please answer.

DAVID: Adler says the possibility God cares for us is 50/50. We should not apply human reasoning to Him. Remember? God is 'selfless' is from other sources.

We are not discussing the possibility that God cares for us! Does Adler tell us that there is a 50/50 chance that God wants our recognition and worship, although there is no chance that he wants our recognition and worship because he is selfless?

Evolution and Raup

DAVID: You don't see believers are satisfied with God has His own morally sufficient reasons. It is you questioning God, not me. Your God must have human reasoning. Mine doesn't.

dhw: Nothing to do with “morally sufficient reasons”, which is your get-out for avoiding the theodicy problem. I am not questioning God – I am questioning your theory that your omnipotent God had only one purpose but messily and inefficiently proceeded to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no relevance to his purpose. Stop dodging!

DAVID: I believe God evolved us by the historical method we all know. Live with it.

dhw: I have no problem with the theory that God, if he exists, evolved us in one way or another, just as he evolved every other life form in one way or another. The problem is the illogical, messy, cumbersome, inefficient combination of purpose and method you impose on him.

DAVID: Do you believe evolution is a simple way to create? NOT your sentiment years ago.

More dodging. This time a totally pointless question. I accept that all species, including humans, evolved. I do not accept that your all-powerful God would have messily and inefficiently specially designed and culled 99.9 out of 10 species that had nothing to do with the only species he actually wanted to design. What has simplicity got to do with anything? But at least you have now dropped yesterday’s theory that he “inherited” his blundering inefficiency from you!

Humanization

DAVID: God creates but not with any self-motive, a strict guideline of theological thought.

dhw: Does all “theological thought” teach you that your God might not enjoy creating, might not be interested in you, might not love you, might indulge in messy, inefficient design, probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours but definitely doesn’t have thought patterns and emotions like ours, is all good but is to blame for bad bugs? Please answer yes or no.

DAVID: Yes, and no.

If there is a no in there, stop pretending that “theological thought” supports you.

DAVID (on the Buddhism thread): Your human personality forces itself into all your theories about God. You must learn to separate yourself.

dhw: I quote you: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” This is a prime example of an “I” forcing itself into all its theories about God, and explains many of the contradictions that plague those theories. Of course all our arguments and beliefs stem from our “selves”, but it so happens that my “self” has no fixed beliefs and can only present alternative explanations for what I see as reality. You accept that they are all logical, and your only objection is that they entail thought patterns or emotions like ours, although your God probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours.

DAVID: How do you know God probably has 'thought patterns and emotions like ours.'? We have no solid evidence, do we?

dhw: I don’t know. I'm quoting you. […] and you confirmed two of your earlier ideas in a December post: “That God would be interested in His creations is reasonable as are our logical thought patterns similar to God’s.” Please stop dodging.

DAVID: Pure guesswork. God tells us nothing as we analyze His works.

Correct. You made a guess(probably has thought patterns like ours), and then guessed that he couldn’t possibly have thought patterns like ours. And you kid yourself that this is how all theologians think about God.