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

by dhw, Saturday, August 10, 2024, 07:57 (103 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

dhw: 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: Answered below, and I would add the rabbis find much in the OT that teaches moral and ethical issues:

Not answered. The fact that modern rabbis reject the OT image of their God does not alter the nature of the God presented in the OT! Of course the OT teaches moral and ethical issues. But do you or do you not accept that the God of the OT is a murderous, vengeful, self-centred being, exemplified by the Flood and the murderous laws laid down in Deuteronomy?

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.

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

DAVID: Back to a very humanized God you prefer.[…]

dhw: 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 on to 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: You want certainty about God: mine is selfless and pursues one purpose to create humans and their supporting ecosystem.

Certainty is impossible. I offer alternative views. You offer schizophrenic views of his nature: e.g. it’s possible that God enjoys creating, wants to be recognized and worshipped, and is benevolent towards us, but it’s not possible because he is not human in any way and is selfless. And you offer a theory of evolution that your perfect, purposeful, all-powerful, all-knowing God, who is in full control, invented 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: Same total distortion of the understanding of evolutionary statistics from Raup.

Your absurd distortion of the maths is dealt with on the “More Miscellany” thread, PART ONE.

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: I follow Adler to the T. He would be horrified at your humanized God.

Does Adler argue that his perfect God’s use of evolution was imperfect and inefficient, or that that he believes in a schizophrenic God who might have human attributes but definitely has no human attributes, and that the way to think about God is to contradict yourself with every theory that you propose, except the design theory? You have admitted that your conclusions are your own, not Adler's, and it is your schizophrenic conclusions that we are discussing.