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

by dhw, Tuesday, July 02, 2024, 09:11 (142 days ago) @ David Turell

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?

dhw: 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: bb“Adler is agnostic about God’s personality. Neutral =taking neither side.bb” Now apparently he said God is not human in any way. The exact opposite of neutrality. So according to you Adler contradicted himself.

DAVID: Of course you know Adler through me. Yes, he said God is in no way a human-like person.

So he’s agnostic (= neutral) about God having human attributes, but he says God has no human attributes! That makes him as self-contradictory as you. Or are you obfuscating with your use of “person”? Above, Adler apparently said “God is not human in any way.” That = he can’t possibly have any human attributes.

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

dhw: 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.)

DAVID: Always sneaking in a humanized God.
And:
DAVID: You have logically produced an illogical humanized God.

You have told us that of course your God “may have human-like attributes”, so why is it illogical to propose a logical theory in which your God has human-like attributes?

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

dhw: Correct. There is no moral or hidden meaning in such expressions 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.

DAVID: That is not the question!!! It is whether the human terms cam be applied to God in any meaningful way.

“Worship” only has one meaning, and the question is whether he does or does not want us to love, respect, thank him etc. The word “worship” does not contain any moral or hidden meaning.

I listed some more 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.[/b]

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

Re 6: 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.

dhw: 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.

dhw: If we may share human-like attributes, then each attribute will show a way in which we humans and God are alike!

DAVID: We do not know if God 'loves' as we do. We do not know how our words apply to God if they really do!! Contradictions are in your false interpretations of my presentations.

You even acknowledged the contradictions in 1,3,4 and 5, and have demolished your own defence re 2 and 6. “If God understands “love” as meaning to hate and to cause suffering, then that would simply make nonsense of our language. Under “microbes in trees”, you defend his design of bad microbes by calling him “benevolent”. We don’t know if God loves us, and yet you know he’s benevolent, without any “allegorical” nonsense. How do you know he’s benevolent, if he’s certainly not human in any way and we don’t know if he loves us? The question is not what the terms mean to God, but whether they apply to him - as you keep agreeing, and then trying to disagree, with one contradiction after another.