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

by David Turell , Monday, May 27, 2024, 16:34 (178 days ago) @ dhw

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

dhw: There is no “allegory”! YOU think he might want to be worshipped, and you and I both know what you mean.

Why repeat? At our level we know the meaning of the words. BUT when applied at God's level of His reality are the meanings the same? We don't know. Pure Adler.

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.

DAVID: Adler wrote as whole book on the subject!!

dhw: Writing a book does not make you the only person who knows how to think about God. If there are as many forms of God as people who invent them, Adler is one of millions who believe they know how to think about God. In any case, the only guiding principle you have come up with so far is that God is not a human being, which is not likely to cause any controversy. But millions of believers clearly believe that God wants us to worship him.

Keep denigrating Adler out of your ignorance. His guide, as a philosopher of religion, is all you need to get started in thinking about God.

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.

dhw: 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”.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: Correct. 50/50 means that each guess is possible. You’ve got it! And so it is 50/50 possible that your God cares for us, wants a relationship, wants to be worshipped – all of which denote human thought patterns and/or emotions. However, your current presentation is that your God has no self-interest (= 100% can’t want us to worship him – tell that to all the priests and rabbis and imams), and is “certainly not human in any way” (= 100% he can’t possibly care for us or want a relationship or want to be worshipped). Your current presentations contradict each other.

The bold is not a correct interpretation. God created us with no expectation or desire we worship Him. "Can't want' is your invention, as God has not blocked our worship and may be allegorically pleased with it.

Evolution

DAVID: 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.

dhw: So please stop pretending that I have distorted Raup, when the distortion is entirely yours. And stop distorting my objection to your theory, which is not that God made a mistake in using evolution, but that you have invented what you call a “messy”, “cumbersome”, “inefficient" way of him fulfilling his purpose by having to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his purpose. Please stop dodging!

Still totally your invented dodge. History tells us we evolved. That method was inefficient in that it covered 3.8 billion years with a loss of 99.9% of all that lived. Pure Raup who decided the extinctions were from bad luck. Add God as the engineer or designer and suddenly it is all wrong because it required a 99.9% extinction rate. Same cockamamie twist in your view. It all comes down to your twisted view: God should not have evolved us but used direct creation.