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

by dhw, Thursday, July 25, 2024, 07:12 (119 days ago) @ David Turell

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

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: There is nothing wrong with God enjoying Himself, but we do not know that God 'needs' enjoyment. He is not human, although you approach Him that way. Why apply any humanness to Him at all?

You keep talking about “need” in your desperation to make this version of God sound weak. Enjoyment is a purpose in itself. And please stop repeating the obvious fact that an eternal creator of universes is not human. That does not mean that the creator of humans (if he exists) cannot have human-like thought patterns and emotions. Why apply these to God? Because if God exists, I’d have thought it would at least be of interest to know what he might be like – especially if you have studied what so-called experts tell us about him. Is he really the murderous, self-centred tyrant of the OT, or a being who loves us, or who couldn’t care less about us? Are you really not interested?

The Adler confusion

DAVID: That God I've met is Adler's, in His philosophy of God.
And:
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.
And:
DAVID: My conclusions follow using Adler's principles. My thoughts only.

dhw: 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.

Your second comment is not an answer.