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

by David Turell , Thursday, July 25, 2024, 20:44 (84 days ago) @ dhw

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?

I am very interested in our discussions, but we should remember the discussion is all guesswork. The theologists I've read present their own imagined guesswork. I take the position to take the imagined God that appeals to you/me. Yours is always part-human as you present Him. Adler at least presents a guide to thinking about God. I follow it as established philosophic principles.

The Adler confusion

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.

dhw: Your second comment is not an answer.

What answer do you want? My position is quite clear. If my following Adler's principles led to my conclusions, they are not Adler's.