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

by David Turell , Wednesday, June 19, 2024, 17:27 (80 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Crazy request!! I can't think like God. God had his reasons. Why keep repeating this???

dhw: Because you lumber your God with one particular REASON for creating life: us and our food. No, you can’t think like God. But you pretend that you can, and you even go so far as to ridicule him because the REASON for creating life which you impose on him results in his acting in a manner you describe as imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Maybe he didn't think: "I only want humans plus food", or "I want to imperfectly and inefficiently design and cull 99.9 out of 100 irrelevant species."

Back I go to the human brain, so complex, so unusual, a natural process could not have invented it. It is the key to Adler's proof of God. Adler used pure Darwin theory in 'The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes'. As below:

DAVID: It is your dodge to downplay our brain, the most unique object in the universe. Nature cannot make this brain. We are the purpose of God's evolution. God's nature is unknown and not in any way human.

dhw: I have not downplayed our brain. But yet again: if we were THE purpose, why did he design and then have to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his purpose? And if God’s nature is unknown, it is totally absurd to insist that he is not in any way human! We don’t know! Stop shooting yourself in the foot.

DAVID: What human way would you make Him!? We already know.

dhw: I offer alternative explanations of evolution which you reject because they entail possible thought patterns and emotions like ours. You insist that my explanations are wrong because God’s nature is unknown and therefore you know that he cannot possibly have thought patterns and emotions like ours, although not so long ago you thought it was probable/possible that he had thought patterns and emotions like ours! I repeat: stop shooting yourself in the foot.

My foot is fine. I've purified my Adlerism by pulling out and reviewing the instructions in the instruction book.

dhw: […] you can’t bear to even contemplate the possibility that your illogical theory might be wrong.

DAVID: There is nothing illogical about faith in God. But not your overly humanized God.

dhw: I am not criticising your faith in God but your illogical theory of evolution and your knowledge that God is certainly not human in any way, although he is unknowable.

Since our knowledge of God's personality is unknown, we each have the right to pick or our version, even your distortion of a highly humanized, thinking just-like-us form. To find God the only way is to analyze His works from a teleological viewpoint. Everything within this universe shows purpose, starting with fine tuning. The evolutionary process, when analyzed, is geared to create complexity and produced the most complex object in the universe, our brain. Even you recognize the design, if not accepting the designer. You rail about God's use of evolution, but that is His way of creating: a universe evolving from the Big Bang, an Earth evolving in its galaxy, which also evolved over time. Life is much more complicated than the universe it lives in. So God evolved it from Archaea to us.

DAVID: God's possible feelings are what we can imagine from our own living experience but that does not make them true for God. They must remain allegorically possible, nothing more.

dhw: The word “allegorically” has no meaning here, as you agreed earlier. We can only imagine God’s possible feelings, and your statement that he may or may not have those feelings is a direct contradiction of your statement that he is certainly not human in any way. It is possible, as you yourself have stated categorically, that he has thought patterns and emotions like ours. Stop disagreeing with yourself.

DAVID: The allegorical meaning is not here but at the God level. Allegorically, God MAY have thought patterns like ours and similar emotions. Nothing is categorical in reference to God.

You never stop contradicting yourself. Here is the astonishing exchange:
dhw: 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 you simply go back again. There is no “allegory”. God may have thought patterns and emotions like ours. But of course nothing is categorical, so stop telling us categorically that your God can’t possibly have thought patterns and emotions like ours (he is CERTAINLY “not human in any way”.)

You do understand: "it is not the meaning of the words that is in question. But their applicability to your God."

The 'applicability' is the key and thus allegorical is correct. Pure Adler.