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

by dhw, Friday, June 21, 2024, 11:46 (119 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] Back I go to the human brain. […] It is the key to Adler’s proof of God.

dhw: Back you go to your usual dodge. WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING PROOF OF GOD! We are discussing the ridiculous theory bolded above. [Now bolded below.]

DAVID: Oh course, the discussion is not proof of God! But the fact is that Adler uses the Darwinian theory of the process of evolution, which type of evolution we are now discussing; Adler's view is right on point. Adler feels Humans were God's purpose and special creation. That is the same or equal to my design theory. Adler's claim of proof is on a different tangent of thought.

So please stop dodging the question why, if – according to you – your all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect God’s ONE AND ONLY purpose was to design us plus food – he designed and then had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose.

DAVID: An all-knowing God picked the perfect method for Himself. Only an all-powerful God could command all the complexities of the universe, of Earth's environmental changes, and of deeply complex biochemical and physiological changes involved in speciation.

The “perfect method” is the totally illogical one bolded above, which you have described as imperfect and inefficient. But you refuse to consider the possibility that your combination of purpose and method may be wrong, for example if your God wanted to create a free-for-all, the 99.9% extinction and 0.1% survival rate (which Raup attributed to luck) would make perfect sense.

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

dhw: And you have come up with your conclusion that although God’s nature is unknowable, you know that he is certainly not human in any way. This means you are certain that he is incapable of all the human-type thought patterns and emotions you once regarded as certain or probable.

DAVID: Whoa! I am certainly not certain about any of God's personal attributes. You still refuse to entertain the view that our descriptive terms on Earth must be applied allegorically to God at His supernatural level.

You refuse to tell us what you mean by “allegorically”. The term is meaningless in this context, as shown below:

“Allegory”
Definitions: “A poem, play, picture etc. in which the apparent meaning of the characters and events is used to symbolize a deeper moral or spiritual meaning” (Encarta). “A story, painting etc. in which the events and characters represent ideas or teach a moral lesson” (Longman)

dhw: You have accepted that it is not the meaning of the words that is in question. But their applicability to your God.

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

dhw: There is no “allegory”! Please give us your own definition of "allegory", and explain the difference between "God may want us to worship him" and "Allegorically God may want us to worship him".

You have not responded to either request.

DAVID: READ: it is the level of application that counts. At our human level worship means worship. We have no idea what it means to God!!!

So back you go to the “meaning” of the word we have invented, instead of to its application. The question is whether your God wants us to worship (= love, admire, praise) him or not. And the same applies to all the possible attributes.

DAVID: Since our knowledge of God's personality is unknown, we each have the right to pick out our version, even your distortion of a highly humanized, thinking just-like-us form.

dhw: My version is not “highly humanized”. I offer alternatives, and they are no more distorted than your own, which now strictly excludes ALL thought patterns and emotions like ours. So you know that your unknowable God is incapable of love, enjoyment, curiosity, wanting to be worshipped, because he is certainly “not human in any way”.

DAVID: All of those term may be applied to Him allegorically since we do not know how closely they apply to Him.

There is no “allegory”. We simply do not know if those terms apply to him or not. (The degree of application still has nothing to do with "allegory".) But although you tell us he is unknowable, you know that those terms do NOT apply to him because you know that he is certainly not human in any way. The contradiction is blatant, and you do yourself no favours by repeating it.