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

by David Turell , Tuesday, May 21, 2024, 16:58 (184 days ago) @ dhw

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

dhw: 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.

The self-less theory comes from many 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.

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

My so-called contradictions are caused by your full misunderstanding of how to think about God. God creates without considering Himself in any way.

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.

dhw: 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?

Exactly!!!

Evolution and Raup

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

dhw: 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?

Full dodge! I remember your statement that evolution was an inefficient way to create.

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.

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

The no is about bad bugs which must exist for their good attributes, but have a bad side.

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.

dhw: 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.

I am following all of every instruction I was taught. Your baseless way of thinking about God is now bolded in your statement above. You are simply listening to your own imagination, guideless in theology.