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

by David Turell , Thursday, August 08, 2024, 17:59 (105 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Please point me to a modern version of the OT that excludes the story of the Flood and the laws laid down in Deuteronomy. You are making my point for me. The God presented in the OT is a murderous, vengeful, self-centred being. I’m not surprised to hear that you and modern rabbis reject the God of the OT, since he is so far from their and your wishes. It’s also interesting that in spite of your Mr Hyde’s view that God is not human in any way, they endow him with human emotions such as caring and loving.

Obviously without any relationship to current Jewish practice, you are blind to how modern rabbis approach God. Yes, they give Him human attributes. I don't need to.

DAVID: It is possible God might have some human attributes, but we cannot know if we are correct. So, all conclusions are moot.

dhw: We are in agreement. So please put a gag on your Mr Hyde, and stop him from objecting to alternative explanations of evolution on the grounds that they entail human attributes different from those that you envisage.

The God I present is nothing like your human form. In contrast, I see a selfless, purposeful God in full control.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: It is not “our” criticism but YOURS! If God exists, I’m sure he would know what he is doing, and you totally miss the point that it is only your interpretation that turns him into an inefficient blunderer!

DAVID: In contrast, what I accept is God chose to evolve us for His own reasons.

dhw: And he chose to evolve all other life forms extant and extinct for his own reasons. But you go on to insist that he evolved all other life forms for the sole reason that he wanted to design us and our contemporaries, and therefore designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us or our contemporaries. That is why you ridicule him as a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer (which you seem to keep forgetting).

Nothing is forgotten. I have fully accepted God's evolution is a cumbersome way to create.

Worship
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.

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

dhw: How many more times? We cannot “know” anything. You suggested he might want us to worship him. I agree that it’s possible. But then you tell us that he is selfless, and so you contradict yourself and say he can’t possibly want us to worship him.

DAVID: Recognizing He is selfless is where to start any discussion. He creates for no self- aggrandizing purpose.

dhw: How the heck do you know? It was you who first suggested that he may have created us because he wanted us to recognize and worship him! Hence your admission that your beliefs are schizophrenic – you are constantly contradicting yourself.

My suggestions about God come from answering your questioning of possible attributes. We are still in the area of 'how many angels can fit on a pin head'. You backtrack to previous discussions out of context. You have agreed God is not human and may or not have any human attributes.

The Adler confusion

DAVID: Adler tells us how to think about God. Any conclusions are our own, not his!

dhw: If his instructions on how to think about God lead you to your collection of schizophrenic, contradictory conclusions, then so be it. We are discussing your conclusions, so Adler is irrelevant to all these discussions.

DAVID: Sometimes an Adler quote is pertinent.

dhw: Agreed. That is, for instance, when you argue that God might possibly have human attributes, cannot possibly have human attributes, but you agree with Adler that there is a 50/50 chance that God has human attributes. I suspect that Adler would turn in his grave if he knew that his instructions on how to think about God had led you into your maze of contradictions.

Adler would applaud me for fighting against you very human God.