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

by David Turell , Thursday, July 18, 2024, 18:30 (51 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I don't accept the 'b' interpretation. I see God as omniscient for His own powers. He creates knowing the endpoint of each evolution: the universe, the Earth, and life, all previously illustrated. But by giving us free will He created an unknown for future time.

dhw: (a)Thank you for continuing to accept the possibility that your God’s motive for creating life might have been that he wanted to enjoy watching its development. This allows for the free-for-all.

(b) So now you are setting limits on his omniscience. But knowing what he wanted and knowing how to get it might be two different things. Hence the possibility that the 99.9% of irrelevant species and the billions of lifeless stars might be the result of experimentation.

Yes, all possibilities, but since we are inventing possible attributes of God I like my form and you like yours. It can't be resolved.

DAVID: All your guesses about God MAY be true, but that is all that can be claimed.

dhw: Thank you again. Of course that is all that can be claimed. Nobody, including you, knows the truth – a fact which extends to the actual existence of God. It MAY be true.

DAVID: To each his own.

dhw: So you have no objection to opinions which lead to exterminations, racism, persecution etc. as perpetrated by people who are comfortable with their own beliefs?

That is a huge stretch. Of course, I will fight against such unethical forces.

dhw: Your Jekyll says God is benevolent and your Hyde says he can’t be benevolent. I get it now. The two of you together think God is schizophrenic, and that explains everything.

DAVID: The honest schizophrenia is I may think God may have certain attributes, but I know He may not.

dhw: Stop playing with language. Yes, you think God may have certain human attributes, but you have also said that he is certainly “not human in any sense”, which means you are certain that he does NOT have any human attributes.

DAVID: Poor word play. Being not human certainly allows Him to exhibit human attributes. For example, chimps show human attributes.

dhw: But being certain that God is “not human in any sense” (your words) means that he does not have any human attributes. In your case, this is not poor word play but a direct contradiction of your belief that he probably/possibly does have human attributes. Hence you own description of your views as “schizophrenic”.

You have backed into Adler's point: since God is not human, all attributions must be presented allegorically.

DAVID: I try to start with a Western religion's God. The way I look at God at two levels does not put God at two levels as you try to propose. It is two views of the same God, religious and philosophical.
And from the brain thread:
DAVID: Please open your rigid brain. God is not schizophrenic; my two views are.

dhw: Your two views of the same God have led you to the religious conclusion that he is benevolent and the philosophical conclusion that he is not benevolent (because he is certainly not human in any sense). As you are you, this means that you believe he is benevolent and not benevolent, which can only mean that you believe he is schizophrenic.

Stop twisting the discussion. My two views do not and cannot mean God is schizophrenic. His benevolence is an attribute we wish for Him, but like Adler, I am 50/50 on the subject. Neutral.