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

by dhw, Tuesday, July 23, 2024, 09:05 (47 days ago) @ David Turell

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!

DAVID: Your approach calls into question, what kind of God is wanted; you produce a weak God […] A weird God who needs enjoyment.

dhw: 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.
And:
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!

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

You seem to think that your self-contradictions are somehow justified by diagnosing yourself as schizophrenic. What’s more, there is a third character who is capable of straightforward reasoning:

DAVID (on the “brain” thread): God may well 'enjoy' allegorically as we do in our way. Also, He may not.

He may or he may not is your Adler’s 50/50, which directly contradicts your two beliefs: that he does enjoy (Jekyll) but he can’t enjoy (Hyde, who says God certainly isn’t human in any sense). Your schizophrenic Jekyll and Hyde do nothing but contradict each other, and I’m sorry, but someone who believes that God enjoys himself but can’t enjoy himself, wants to be recognized and worshipped but can’t want to be recognized and worshipped, is benevolent but can’t be benevolent, actually believes that God is schizophrenic too. It is only your third identity that tries to restore a balance. Now, just to round off this particular approach to your God’s possible purpose, please ask your third self what is wrong with the idea of your God enjoying what he does.

The Adler confusion

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: […] 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.

DAVID: Adler's principles allow me to do just that.

If Adler’s principles really allowed you to depict your omnipotent, omniscient, perfect God as an imperfect, inefficient, schizophrenic designer, then his principles must be as wacky as your conclusions. But I suspect your My Hyde is up to his tricks again.