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

by David Turell , Sunday, May 26, 2024, 17:05 (104 days ago) @ dhw

How God works

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.

dhw: 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”.

Right, but only at our human level of discussion. When applied to God they must be allegorical.

DAVID: “There are as many forms of God as people invent Him[/i].”

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

Adler wrote as whole book on the subject!!

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.

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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”.

Don't you understand the word 'neutral'? 50/50 is your agnosticism! Your use of the word 'chance' tells us none of the guesses re God are more than possibilism.

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.

dhw: 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?

Raup does not discuss God. When I put God in charge with a purpose for creating humans, suddenly evolution is all wrong as way for God to work! It is your problem telling us God made a mistake in using evolution to make humans. You have conjured up a problem for yourself. Not for me.

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

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

dhw: See above.

Yes, the above discussion covers it.