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

by David Turell , Tuesday, August 13, 2024, 19:38 (34 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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.

Totally twisted as usual. In my view a perfect God used an evolutionary system I view as imperfect. From God's standpoint His use of evolution is perfect, as His chosen system of creation. Human level vs. God level of reasoning, and you conflate them although they are totally different. Note we are discussing God! Surprise?

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

dhw: 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.

I simply follow the rule that any human attributes MAY NOT APPLY to God.

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.

dhw: 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.

Adler will appear every time you break his rules.