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

by David Turell , Sunday, June 30, 2024, 15:46 (69 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: It is Adler's theology I have adopted and used.

dhw: And distorted – since he does not ridicule your God’s mode of evolution, and he does not support your certainty that your God is not human in any way.

Adler never mentioned God's mode of evolution. He used Darwin theory. Adler ssid God is not human in any way. Why do you think you know Adler?

DAVID: You don't recognize your travesty of your humanized God.

dhw: I do not regard a God who efficiently creates what he wants to create as a “humanized travesty”, but I do regard as a travesty any version of a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent God which ridicules him as an imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

God used an imperfect system to successfully create us. An omniscient God chose the proper system.

dhw: […] to make matters worse, according to you he also knew that he was perfectly capable of creating species “de novo”, without having to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species. Daft!

DAVID: Yes, you are daft. Only you can outthink God! An omniscient God picked the best system to create humans. Your brain is better than God's? No way.

dhw: It is you who are trying to outthink God and believe your brain is better than his! You impose your own idea of his purpose on him (from the start, he only wanted to design us plus food), and then impose your own idea of an imperfect, messy, cumbersome inefficient method on him. I propose theistic alternatives which logically explain the history of evolution’s comings and goings and show your God to have used evolution as the perfect, highly efficient way of achieving his purpose. And your one and only objection is that they involve [HUMAN] thought patterns and emotions which even now you agree he may or may not have (see below).

See above. I inserted a word to correct your statement. The arrival of most unusual humans from a 'natural' system cannot happen. This is Adler's point: God is required.

"Allegory" and human attributes

DAVID: I fully know how Adler used the word 'allegorically'.

dhw: When I asked you to explain it, you were "sure Adler knew the meaning of allegorical when he said to use it". Good for Adler. Now please define the word, tell us the difference between worship and allegorical worship, and please confirm your agreement that “it is not the meaning of the words that is in question, but their applicability to God.”

The whole point is applicability to God! Adler uses the word this way:

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/allegorical

"Allegorical means containing a moral or hidden meaning."

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

DAVID: Adler used the word as quoted. Any human attributes must be applied allegorically to God. Adler's definition: "Allegorical means containing a moral or hidden meaning."

dhw: When (two weeks ago) I quoted your certainty that God enjoyed creating, would be bored by Eden, might want to be recognized and worshipped, probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotion like ours, you replied that these were guesses, and “He may or may not have those feelings”. A week ago, you wrote: “I have no personal knowledge as you know. Of course, He may have human-like attributes.” This fits in with Adler’s neutrality and is the direct opposite of your “theology”, that your God is “certainly not human in any way”. The word “allegorically” does not remove your absurd self-contradictions:
1)Your perfect God is an imperfect designer.
2)Of course your God may have human-like attributes, but he is certainly not human in any way.
3)Your selfless God might want us to worship him.
4)Dhw doesn’t know how to think about God “in true theological ways”, but you dismiss all theologies that differ from yours, because “my personal theology is mine. I follow Adler and Aquinas only” (= double standards).
5)Your all-good God deliberately creates evil (as a “challenge”).
6)We and our food are not directly descended from 99.9% of creatures that ever lived, but we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of creatures that ever lived.

All correct except 6 and 2. In 6, only the thought after the 'but' applies. In 2, remember God is certainly not human in any way. He and we may share some similar attributes.