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

by dhw, Tuesday, August 13, 2024, 10:51 (34 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: 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.

You said God is “perfect” by definition. I pointed out that there were many different versions of God, and I doubted it you would regard the murderous, self-centred OT God as “perfect”. You agreed with me that you don’t, but that is because your starting point is the “perfect” God you wish to believe in. As for your theory of evolution, we can’t discuss God’s view of anything! If YOUR view is that his evolution is imperfect, then YOUR view is that he can’t be perfect.

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. 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.

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

Of course they may not apply. It is possible that God does not even exist. We can only theorize. You keep agreeing and disagreeing that your God may have human attributes, and you suggest attributes (enjoyment of creation, desire for recognition and worship, benevolence towards us) he may have, but then you tell us that you reject any humanizing! So you propose possible attributes, and when I agree they are possible, you say they are not possible. And you confess that your views are schizophrenic.

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

I can almost hear his sigh of relief. I really can’t imagine he would have wanted his guidelines to lead to your schizophrenic, self-contradictory conclusions, and it is these that we discuss, so Adler is totally irrelevant to our discussions. Please stop hiding behind him.