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

by dhw, Friday, August 02, 2024, 11:54 (45 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God, by definition must be perfect.

dhw: This is already an absurd statement. Firstly, you have said yourself that there are as many gods as people who invent them. Secondly, the words “god” and “perfection” are human inventions, and we use them according to our own criteria. “Perfect” can only mean without what we consider to be faults. If we consider his work to be imperfect, then in our eyes he cannot be perfect.

I would add that if the murderous, vengeful, self-centred God of the OT is real, I doubt if even you would regard that as “perfection”.

DAVID: There is just one God!! No matter how many human versions exist.

We don’t even know if your God exists, and in any case there are polytheistic religions in different parts of the world. Stop making assumptions.

DAVID: Just as the human-God gap you don't understand. God is not human in any way.

Mr Hyde speaking. Dr Jekyll says God probably/possibly has human thought patterns and emotions like ours. As you wrote on June 23: “I have no personal knowledge as you know. Of course. He may have human-like attributes.” And now: ”Try to see a believers' approach to God. Recognize, God is never human in any way. Any human-like attributes are possible, not probable.” Not in any way human, but it is possible that he is human in some ways! Please stop making these continuous, schizophrenic contradictions.

DAVID: In our human reasoning what God does may look imperfect, but that is our reasoning not God's. Our reasoning in imperfect compared to God's. I always respect God's reasons.

How can you respect reasons you don’t know for illogical actions and purposes which are nothing but guesses on your part?

DAVID: God is NOT human so any discussion must apply our terms allegorically to Him. How else to do it when discussing a non-person at a super-natural level?

dhw: Either we discuss what WE mean, or there is no point in having any discussions at all. If you think he wants us to worship him, you and I know precisely what you mean. There is no “allegory”. Either he does or does not want us to worship him. Having human attributes does not mean that the creator of a universe is a human being. It simply means that the creator may have endowed his creations with some of his own characteristics.

DAVID: Again, your confusion: of course, in our human discussions we know exactly what we mean. WE have NO IDEA what it means as applied to God. Thus allegory at God level!!

Yet again: we know what we mean by the word "worship", which is our invention. The question is not “what does God understand by the word worship?” but “does God want us to worship him or not?”

The Adler confusion

DAVID: Adler's instructions allow me to think independently. I am not confused. You are. You obviously have no guidelines to follow.

dhw: I can think of no principles/instructions that could possibly allow more independent thought than agnosticism. You frequently complain that you know of no theology that offers my theistic alternatives to your schizophrenic contradictions. Guidelines/instructions inhibit independent thinking!

DAVID: No, they help to guide reasoning in an unknown area. You are so free of rules, you blightly make up human Gods.

Instructions tell you what to do/think. An open mind allows independent thinking. A God who wants a free-for-all, or who enjoys creating and learning and making new discoveries, is no more human than a God whose designs are imperfect and inefficient, or who wants to be worshipped, or who is benevolent and cares for us.