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

by dhw, Friday, August 09, 2024, 12:17 (104 days ago) @ David Turell

I’ve tried to cut out repetitions by transferring comments from the “brain” thread, which I have closed because the brain discussion itself had ended, and from “More Miscellany”,

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.

DAVID: 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.

My point was that the God of the OT is a murderous, vengeful, self-centred being. If modern rabbis have rejected this image, that does not alter the contents of the OT! Or have they rewritten the OT? As regards human attributes, your Dr Jekyll thinks God is benevolent, and your Mr Hyde says he can’t be, because he's not human in any way. Your schizophrenic approach to God is a complete mess.

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.

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

And under “free will” (as an example of God’s willingnness to sacrifice control):

DAVID: Back to a very humanized God you prefer.

And under “Earliest L-forms”:

DAVID: I wish you would remember my God is a selfless purposeful creator.

A God who experiments and likes to make new discoveries, or who creates a free-for-all, is no more human and no less purposeful than the God who, as you suggested, enjoys creating and might want to be recognized and worshipped (i.e. is not selfless), and is benevolent towards us. All these versions endow the creator with attributes passed onto his creations (if he exists),and your Dr Jekyll agrees that his God may have thought patterns and emotions like ours. Please put a gag on your Mr Hyde.

DAVID: 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.

If you think your purposeful God’s sole purpose was to design us plus food, it is perfectly legitimate to ask what his purpose might have been for doing so. You gave honest answers. How could they be “out of context”? YOU agree that he may have human attributes, so once and for all, please put a gag on your Mr Hyde.

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: I have fully accepted God's evolution is a cumbersome way to create.

You have fully accepted your ridiculous theory that your purposeful God, who is in full control, imposed on himself a system which forced him to design and cull 99.9 species out of 100 that were irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him!

DAVID (transferred from the “brain” thread): Back to your distortion of a necessary culling process.

The distortion lies in your insistence that culling was necessary because he had knowingly, cumbersomely and inefficiently designed species irrelevant to his purpose.

The Adler confusion

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

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Adler would applaud me for fighting against your very human God.

Adler apparently agrees that there is a 50/50 chance of his God having such human emotions as caring for us and loving us. It is your incoherent, self-contradictory, schizophrenic conclusions that I suspect would horrify him. Please put a gag on your Mr Hyde.