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

by dhw, Saturday, May 25, 2024, 11:48 (146 days ago) @ David Turell

How God works

DAVID: Adler says God's attention to us is 50/50. There is a vast spread of beliefs about God as this comparison shows, because everyone choses the God He wishes to believe in.

On Tuesday you wrote:”Adler says the possibility God cares for us is 50/50.” There is a big difference between attention (could just = impersonal interest, in line with the deism you dismiss) and caring (= emotional engagement). You can hardly dispute the fact that “caring” is a human emotion, so there is a 50/50 possibility that your God does have thought patterns and emotions like ours, as you agree later:

DAVID: Whether he requires any sort of relationship is a 50/50 probability.

Humans require relationships. Thank you for modifying your earlier statement that he is “certainly not human in any sense” to a "probable" 50/50.

DAVID: Adler tells us God is not a human person. He must be approached allegorically. I use his principles as I develop my concept of God, which not be exactly like other the theologians.
And:
DAVID: Adler tells us God is in no way a human-like personage. Adler is a world-renowned philosopher of religion!
And:
DAVID: “You do not know how to think about Him following theological rules.” “There are as many forms of God as people invent Him.”

We do not need a world-renowned philosopher to tell us that an eternal, sourceless, immaterial creator of universes is “not a human person”, but that does not mean he can’t possibly have thought patterns and emotions like ours, such as caring for us, or maybe wanting us to worship him, or maybe creating things for the enjoyment of creation. Is this the only instruction you follow? You have just agreed that “there are as many forms of God as people invent Him, so your concept may not “be exactly like other theologians” is a pretty massive understatement, especially in view of all your self-contradictions.

DAVID: [..] When you arrive at belief, as I did, after much reading, you must pick the sort of God you wish to believe in. I chose the prevailing Western mono-theistic all-everything version. […]

dhw: […] Your “prevailing all-everything” version makes him the first cause who is forced by some inherited law to design 99.9 out of 100 species irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him (hence your ridiculing him as an inefficient designer), has him possibly wanting to be worshipped and enjoying creation but without self-interest, all-powerful but powerless to prevent his murderous bugs from murdering us (for which you blame him), not wanting to be bored by puppets but incapable of boredom, and probably having human thought patterns and emotions like ours but certainly not human in any sense. And you pretend that all these contradictions stem from your special knowledge of how we must think about God, following the rigid rules that govern all the different views of all theologians.

DAVID: Conflating a series of disconnected quotes, totally out of context poisons this debate. My current present presentation is all that counts.

None of the quotes can possibly relate to any context other than your views on God’s purpose, methods or nature. There is no poison. If your current presentation is all that counts, then you are telling me to disregard all the other presentations of the past that you have offered us. This not only makes a mockery of all discussion, but also raises the question why I should accept your “current present presentation”, since your presentations can change so rapidly.

DAVID: God evolved us exactly as history described, with 99.9% loss of preceding forms. That you turn this fact into making God stupid is your concocted problem as debate ploy without substance.

It is YOU who have used the adjectives “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient” because you can make no sense of a method whereby your all-powerful, all-knowing God has to design 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with the purpose you impose on him. This is not a “debate ploy”! I have even offered you three alternative theistic explanations for the 99.9% loss that dispense with your derogatory view.

DAVID: dhw picks very a humanized God who has needs for entertainment in the free-for-all concept dhw offers. And dhw's God has to experiment which means his God is not all-powerful. In the discussion of the issue of boredom as a factor in our reality dhw's God does not wish to be bored. dhw's God is a Siamese twin with him

dhw: I don’t even know if God exists, but I offer logical alternativ versions to your own. These never include the word “need”, and I have disowned the superficial word “entertainment”. I have incorporated terms you yourself have used, when expressing your certainty that your God enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations. He doesn’t “have to” experiment, but in two of my versions he wants to experiment. I have nothing against the theory that God did not want to be bored, and I have nothing against your own belief that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours (now reduced to 50/50). I only object when you then contradict yourself by telling us that he is “certainly not human in any sense[/b]”.

Your answer to this was that I should read Adler. See above. Have you misrepresented him there?