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

by David Turell , Monday, July 22, 2024, 16:51 (87 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You still do not see the view of believers. Whatever God chooses is correct.

dhw: Of course it is. How does that prove that your God’s “choice” of purpose was us plus food, and his “choice” of method was to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species irrelevant to his choice of purpose? If God chose a free-for-all, or to experiment, then a free-for-all or experimentation would be correct!

Your approach calls into question, what kind of God is wanted; you produce a weak God

DAVID: How much 'enjoyment' does a God require? An unknown quatity, unanswerable question.

dhw: We are not measuring degrees of enjoyment. You said he enjoyed creating, and you said he would not have enjoyed watching what he already knew. Both of your statements provide a strong basis for the argument that he created a free-for-all for his own enjoyment.

Yes, a weird God who needs enjoyment.

dhw: […] I have no idea why you would ridicule this as “namby-pamby” and “weak in purpose”, or why you dismiss the human attribute of enjoyment in relation to evolutionary development, but embrace it in relation to human development. These objections are as self-contradictory as your theistic theory of evolution.

DAVID: All allegorical guesses about God, whose personage is not like ours. He may not wish to care about us at all, with Adler at 50/50, neutral.

dhw: You have not told us why you accept enjoyment as a motive for free will but reject it as a motive for evolution. Of course he can’t be a person like us, and I agree with Adler’s neutrality, whereas you have opted for divine schizophrenia!.

My two ways to approach God is my schizophrenia, alone.

DAVID: That God I've met is Adler's, in His philosophy of God.

dhw: I’m surprised that Adler ridicules God as a messy, inefficient designer, and that he views God schizophrenically as benevolent but not benevolent, wanting but not wanting recognition etc. as above, although apparently Adler himself says such attributes are 50/50. Since you follow him, are you saying that his views are schizophrenic?

DAVID: Adler solves the yes or no problem by bringing us the concept of allegorical attributes, much like Schrodinger's dead and alive cat. All you ascribe above to Adler are my thoughts, not Adler's.

dhw: So please stop making these constant claims that you follow Adler, and are “perfectly with Adler”, when your theory of evolution and your schizophrenic views of God – the subjects of all these disagreements – are yours and not his. As I said earlier, he’d probably be turning in his grave if he thought you were using him as back-up!

DAVID: I follow his principles of how to think about God. You assume I'm quoting Adler. My conclusions are my own.

dhw: Thank you for confirming that your conclusions have nothing whatsoever to do with Adler. So please stop referring to him as if his “principles” justify your view of God as an inefficient and schizophrenic designer.

Adler's principles allow me to do just that.