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

by dhw, Tuesday, August 06, 2024, 08:21 (107 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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: Present day Rabbis' have softened that interpretation, considering the level of civility in that time period. But even in that time Rabbi Hillel was delivering Jesus' God loves you message before Jesus arrived.

It must be reassuring to know that rabbis can mess about with what was once considered the Word of God. Do they now tell us that lots of people survived the Flood, and Moses made a mistake when he said that God wants Jews to kill anyone who doesn’t believe in him, and to raze their cities to the ground?

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

dhw: 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: "God is not human" cannot be contradicted. All problems flow from that thought. It is possible He reflects us in some ways. That is as far as one can go.

At last we agree. Of course God is not a human being. But yes indeed, it is possible that he has human attributes. So will you please once and for all stop telling us that your God is not human in any way. I shall remind you of this every time you moan that my alternative theistic theories “humanize” God.

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.

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

DAVID: Join me in belief and see how respect works.

Why should I respect your guesses about God’s purposes and actions, when you can’t think of a single reason why he would act in the ways you impose on him? It is YOU who ridicule YOUR theory of your God’s purpose and method as imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient! Is that how “respect works”?

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!!

dhw: 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?”

DAVID: I don't know. God may not NEED human worship. Thus, back to allegorical.

Why are you talking about “need”? There is no “allegory”! Either he wants us to worship him (= praise, admire and thank him), or he doesn’t.

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Yep, trundling out all the human wishes for God's relationship to us. Does He or doesn't He (?), I don't know, and IT DOES NOT affect my personal belief. (Note Adler here)

Your question is on target: does he or doesn’t he? Answer: we don’t know. We can only theorize. You “humanize” God (enjoyment, interest, worship, recognition), then you say God is not human in any way, then you say human attributes are possible, then if I propose human attributes, you go back to saying God is not human in any way. You admit that your views are schizophrenic, as if that justified your blatant contradictions, and then you tell us Adler’s instructions allow you to be self-contradictory and schizophrenic. A great recommendation.