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

by dhw, Sunday, May 26, 2024, 08:28 (105 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. (dhw: You changed “cares for us” to ”attention to us”.)

And:

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

dhw:.... You can hardly dispute the fact that “caring” and “having a relationship” are human attributes, so there is a 50/50 possibility that your God does have thought patterns and emotions like ours […]

DAVID: God is not a probable 50/50 human!! That He might wish a 50/50 relationship in an allegorical way in no way humanizes Him.

Not “a probable human” but a being who has some thought patterns and emotions like ours. You used the words “care for us”, “relationship” and “recognizing and worshipping”. We both know what you mean by those words. There is no “allegory”.

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.”

dhw: We do not need a world-renowned philosopher to tell us that an eternal, sourceless, immaterial creator of universes is not a human being, but that does not mean your God can’t possibly have thought patterns and emotions like ours, such as caring for us, wanting a relationship, or wanting us to worship him. Is this the only instruction you follow?

DAVID: “There are as many forms of God as people invent Him.”

So it is pointless you telling me that there are strict rules about how to think about him.

DAVID: I do not contradict my descriptions of God. Your confusion in how to think about God is the problem. You don't like the allegorical problem.

You can’t see a contradiction between God might want us to worship him, and God has no self-interest. Worship = express our recognition and praise and love and gratitude; self-interest in this context would include wanting to be recognized, praised, loved and thanked. What “allegory” did you have in mind when you used these terms? I shan’t repeat all the other contradictions in your theories since your reply is:

DAVID: Your usual mishmash of quotes out of context.

There is no possible context other than your concept of your God’s purpose, methods and nature.

DAVID: […] My current present presentation is all that counts.

dhw:... 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: Current presentation: God creates with no self-interests involved. The 50/50 probability is a neutral view from Adler. No rapid change in this presentation.

50/50 means there is a 50/50 chance that your God cares for us, wants a relationship with us, wants us to worship him – which contradicts your equally current 100% presentations that he has no self-interest, and is “certainly not human in any way”.

Evolution

dhw: […] 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.

DAVID: Your mathematical view of evolution is so wrong, it defies a reasonable response. All Raup said was 99.9% had to go extinct to reach the current survivors. It showed purpose. but not in your twisted approach.

Have you now discarded the above theory? My “twisted approach” is that according to you Raup says changing conditions result in extinctions, and these are necessary if evolution is to continue, because new species will only arise through changing conditions. This makes perfect sense to me. Raup does not say God had to design and cull 99.9 species out of 100, because that’s what he had to do in order to fulfil his one and only purpose of creating us plus food. Who is twisting Raup?

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 alternative 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”.

DAVID: You have contorted guesses I made about God's possible allegorical desires.

See above.