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

by David Turell , Tuesday, August 06, 2024, 16:49 (107 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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?

Your literal approach to the OT is not used today. Yours is an Antediluvian view. (pun intended)

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.

dhw: 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.

'Reflecting us in some ways' is a purposely vague observation!!! But you pounce on it to somehow show your humanizing of God is OK! It isn't.

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

dhw: 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”?

Our criticism of God's use of evolution is our human level of understanding. I respect God knows what He is doing for His own unknown reasons. You totally miss the points.

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.

dhw: 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.

It is 'need' if God desires our worship. We cannot know if He does.

The Adler confusion

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)

dhw: 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.

Totally distorted version. Adler tells us how to think about God. Any conclusions are our own, not his!