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

by David Turell , Thursday, June 27, 2024, 19:25 (147 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You don’t assimilate the absurdity of your claim that an all-knowing, all-powerful God would choose an imperfect, messy, cumbersome, inefficient way to achieve the purpose you impose on him. You say I am out of touch with theology, so please tell us which theologians you know who champion the theory that their God is an imperfect, messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer.

You ignore what I write. I have my personal theology built on instructions from a philosopher of religion.

"Allegory" and Human attributes

DAVID: I am sure Adler knew the meaning of allegorical when he said to use it.

dhw: Now please tell us what he meant, or stop hiding behind your smokescreen.

DAVID: Repeat: Adler said we must use words describing God allegorically.

dhw: I know he said it. And you said you fully understood what he meant by it. So please tell us what he meant, and what is the difference between “God may want us to worship him” and “Allegorically God may want us to worship him.” And stop dodging.

Simple: Worship at our level may not have the same meaning as applied to God's wishes about worship.

DAVID: Of course I reject your humanized God.

dhw: You reject a God who has certain “human-like attributes”. Please tell us […] how many theologians believe that their God – who is “certainly not human in any way” – is incapable of loving us and does not want us to worship him.

My theologian is Adler as below:

DAVID: Of course, they do, and I accept Adler's neutral position.

dhw: If Adler is neutral, then he can hardly inform us that his God is “certainly not human in any way”. Neutrality = God may or may not have human attributes. So do you now wish to jettison your bolded “certainly” comment above – and if you do, would you please stop objecting to my alternatives on the grounds that they entail human attributes.

Now twisting the meaning of neutral as I applied it to Adler. Adler is agnostic about God's personality. Neutral=taking neither side.

God’s purpose

DAVID: [...] God's main purpose was to create us and our resources.

And:
DAVID: We are a most extraordinary result of a natural process; therefore, God designed us. No other explanation fits.

dhw: All life forms are complex enough for you to argue that they must have been designed, but we are not discussing the theory of design! We are discussing the illogical theory that your all-powerful, all-knowing God imperfectly and inefficiently designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the one and only purpose you allow him. Stop dodging.

The dodge is yours to keep dredging up your illogical complaint. Repeat: an omniscient God chose the best system to create humans and it worked. To our human brains it looks cumbersome, but apparently not to God.

99.9% versus 0.1%

DAVID: Adler would educate you.

dhw: According to you, Adler does not cover your absurd theory.

DAVID: As for the required extinctions, they are the natural result of evolution.

dhw: Normally, when you use the word “natural”, you contrast it with deliberate design by your God. Please clarify: 1) did your God specially design and then have to cull the 696 dinosaur species that left no descendants? 2) Do you think your God deliberately sent the asteroid that killed them, or was the collision a natural event that he was unable to control?

Schroeder, an orthodox Jewish theoretical physicist, guessed God used the asteroid. I'll stick with that. God culled the dinosaurs