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

by dhw, Friday, July 19, 2024, 08:03 (91 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: 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.

This is real progress. In the past you have simply rejected all my alternatives outright, on the grounds that they “humanize” God, although it is probable/possible that he has thought patterns and emotions like ours. The choice now – astonishingly, since you are a believer and I am an agnostic – is between your imperfect, messy, clumsy and inefficient God and mine, who in all three alternatives knows exactly what he wants and gets it.

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: If I am comfortable with my beliefs, that is all I require.

I pointed out that Hitler and Co would have used the same argument.

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?

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

Then you should be able to recognize that being comfortable with your beliefs is no guarantee that they are the truth, so please stop insisting that your God’s only possible purpose was us and our food, and his only possible (imperfect and inefficient) method of producing us was to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us.

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: […]. 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. […] this is a direct contradiction of your belief that he probably/possibly does have human attributes. Hence you own description of your views as “schizophrenic”.

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.

DAVID: 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.

This is the problem. You keep changing your mind and ignoring what you have written. Referring to nasty microbiomes under “microbes in trees” you wrote: “A benevolent God did this, fully understanding the consequences.” That is not a “wish – it is a belief. Previously, you had written: “He has some sort of personality, certainly not human in any sense.” That is not 50/50 neutral. If you believe he is benevolent, and you believe he is not human in any sense, you believe in a Jekyll and Hyde God, which some of us would call schizophrenia, or split personality, or dissociative identity disorder.