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

by dhw, Thursday, June 13, 2024, 11:12 (161 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Of course the living are the result of descendants! The point is not that 99.9% “had to go extinct”, but that you have no idea why your God “had to” design them in the first place. But you simply refuse to consider the possibility that he deliberately designed the 99.9 because he wanted to –...

DAVID: Of course, He designed the 99.9% because He wanted to! Where did you get that insane idea? He developed His goal stepwise.

Because you have the insane idea that he had to, and he also had to cull them because they were NOT steps towards his one and only goal, and that is why you have the insane idea than a perfect, omnipotent and omniscient God would choose an imperfect and inefficient method to fulfil the one and only purpose you impose on him.

dhw: We plus food are descended from the 0.1% of species that survived past extinctions, as you keep agreeing and then disagreeing. Example: 696 species of dinosaurs left no descendants, 4 left descendants (birds).

DAVID: The ratios apply to all species.

We are talking about the ratio between those species that did or did not have a connection with the species you say were your God’s only purpose. When I asked: “Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?” you replied: “No. From the 0.1% surviving.”
In yesterday’s post you wrote: “A purposeful God created humans. The many forms come from a major problem.” What is the major problem and why do you call your perfect God’s method “imperfect” and “inefficient”if you’re not referring to the 99.9% of irrelevant species?

Evolution

dhw (re “allegory”): You have accepted that it is not the meaning of the words that is in question, but their applicability to your God.

DAVID: Finally you understand.

dhw: No, finally YOU understood, and now back you go to not understanding.

dhw: And this is what keeps happening. A string of contradictions, and agreements which a few days later turn into yourself disagreeing with yourself.
There is no need for me to repeat the list of examples.

DAVID: Again, flushing up quotes out of context. The bolds I created are correct views of mine about God.

I pointed out that the context could only have been God’s purpose and/or nature, and it was absurd for you to reject your own proposals.

DAVID: My earlier guesses about God's wishes or intentions are simply guesses with an intended allegorically meaning for God.

dhw: There is no “allegorical” meaning, as you agreed above (bolded).

DAVID: Applied to God they are, not to us.

We invented the word “worship”, and we know what it means: to show our respect, admiration, love etc. The question is not whether the word means something different to God but whether he does or doesn’t want us to show our respect, admiration, love etc. As you agreed above in the bold. Please stop disagreeing with yourself.

DAVID: Adler never touches on theodicy even if his view of God raises that issue.

dhw: An extraordinary omission from someone who is telling us how to think about God. It can only mean that when we/you think about God, we/you shouldn’t think about anything Adler/you don’t want us to think about.

DAVID: You have a good point.

Thank you.

DAVID: We are left with an all-powerful personage with no knowledge of His reasoning or intentions other than the above. There is no way He can be humanized.

This is followed by more meaningless talk of “allegory” – dealt with above.

dhw: All of this is shown in its true light with your comment at the end of the more “miscellany” thread, as follows:

DAVID: A purposeful God created humans. The many forms come from a major problem. Whoever God is, is up for grabs. We are faced with a totally unknown personage.

dhw: You’re right about the major problem. (Does Adler agree that his God is an imperfect and inefficient designer?) “Whoever God is, is up for grabs….totally unknown personage” completely demolishes your assumption that he cannot possibly have any of the “humanized” traits you originally suggested he might have. Your certainty is the result of your own preconceptions – you start with the God you “wish to believe in”. And you tell us that this is how we should think about God!

DAVID: Adler uses the usual religious conceptions of an all-powerful God. All 'humanizing' is a lack of accepting using an allegorical meaning for God.

There is no “allegorical” meaning – either your God wants us to worship him or he doesn’t. And if whoever God is, is up for grabs, how can you reject the possibility that he has thought patterns and emotions like ours, enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, might want to relieve boredom, might like to experiment? You have every right to invent your own form of God, but it is not up to you to decide what a “totally unknown personage” can or cannot be, want, or do.