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

by David Turell , Monday, August 12, 2024, 16:43 (35 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The OT has always been some actual history and a series of stories for me. The difference in my interpretation of God from yours is a perfect God chose to use a cumbersome system in our human view for His own reasons.

dhw: We were talking about your definition of God as “perfect”. You totally misunderstood the reference to the OT, and now you’re merely repeating your belief that your perfect God used an imperfect method to achieve the purpose you impose on him. Yet another of your schizophrenic, self-contradictory beliefs.

You are off thread by always bringing up an OT God you hate. Above your twisted version of my view forgets it is my human analysis that evolution is imperfect does not mean it is imperfect for God in his view.

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

dhw: If it is possible that your God might have some human attributes, you cannot reject any “humanizing” of him. You yourself proposed that your God might enjoy creating, might want to be recognized and worshipped, and is benevolent. Now you reject your own proposal. Schizophrenic is your own diagnosis. Please, please, take a grip and stop all this nonsense. We agree that nobody knows your God’s true nature, but it is possible that he has human thought patterns and emotions. It is therefore totally unreasonable to reject logical alternatives to your own illogical, contradictory theory of evolution just because they entail his having human thought patterns and emotions you don’t want him to have.

It is not what I want for God! I simply want recognition that our human attributes may not apply at all.

The Adler confusion

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

dhw: So Adler has guided you to all the self-contradictory conclusions that lead you to believe in a schizophrenic, imperfectly perfect God. Not much of a recommendation, is it?

DAVID: Adler is not responsible for my use of his guidelines.

dhw: I can almost hear his sigh of relief. Please stop insulting him by telling us that you follow him to a T, when you know that his guidelines do not lead to your schizophrenic self-contradictions.

I follow "How to Think about God" to a T. Ny resultant thinking is mine alone.