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

by David Turell , Friday, July 19, 2024, 17:51 (125 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: since we are inventing possible attributes of God I like my form and you like yours. It can't be resolved.

dhw: 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.

That each of us has a preferred form of God does not create progress to an agreement.

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.

dhw: 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.

I will continue to believe God evolved us as His major desired endpoint. That we think His method was cumbersome is a human level judgement, not God's.

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.

dhw: 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.

My views of God are honest philosophical judgements. It leads me to certain beliefs which are my judgements, not proof of anything. The God I think about is not schizophrenic, while MY views are schizo. I don't see God as Jekyll or Hyde even if my views are.