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

by dhw, Monday, July 01, 2024, 09:28 (143 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.

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

I only know Adler through what you tell me. 1) You have confirmed here that he offers no support for your daft theory of evolution. 2) You wrote: “Adler is agnostic about God’s personality. Neutral =taking neither side.” Now apparently he said God is not human in any way. The exact opposite of neutrality. So according to you Adler contradicted himself.

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.

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

An omniscient God would choose the proper system to achieve his goal. The word “proper” is not synonymous with “imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient”. So maybe your omniscient God had a different goal from the one you impose on him, or maybe his method was not as inefficient as you make it out to be (e.g. he wanted and designed a free-for-all, or he used experimentation and discovery instead of deliberately and knowingly designing and having to cull 99.9 out of 100 of his special designs.)

dhw: […] 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).

DAVID: See above. I inserted a word to correct your statement.

Thank you.

DAVID: The arrival of most unusual humans from a 'natural' system cannot happen. This is Adler's point: God is required.

As usual, you dodge back to Adler’s proof of God’s existence, while our subject here is your daft theory of evolution, and my logical theistic alternatives..

"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.”

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

Exactly. Nothing to do with “allegory”!

DAVID: https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/allegorical
"Allegorical means containing a moral or hidden meaning."

Correct. There is no moral or hidden meaning in such terms as God wants us to worship him, God is all-good, God loves us, God enjoys creating etc... We all know exactly what they mean, and the question is simply whether they are true or not.

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.

DAVID: All correct except 6 and 2. In 6, only the thought after the 'but' applies.

Re 6, which I have quoted again and again:
dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?
DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

Since when did “no” mean “yes? Re 2)

DAVID: In 2, remember God is certainly not human in any way. He and we may share some similar attributes.

If we may share human-like attributes, then each attribute will show a way in which we humans and God are alike! It doesn’t seem to register with you that every contradiction highlights the sheer nonsense of your arguments. I’m sorry to be so brutal, but you are not doing yourself, Adler or your God any favours with them.