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

by David Turell , Thursday, August 15, 2024, 00:01 (33 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Totally twisted as usual. In my view a perfect God used an evolutionary system I view as imperfect.

dhw: And so you view your perfect God as being an imperfect designer. A fine example of your schizophrenic thinking.

DAVID: From God's standpoint His use of evolution is perfect, as His chosen system of creation.

dhw: You are in no position to tell us your God’s standpoint. If you think he invented an imperfect system, then you think he is an imperfect designer, regardless of what he thinks (which you can never know).

A perfect God who uses a system I think is imperfect does not make God imperfect. Your comment makes no sense.

DAVID: Human level vs. God level of reasoning, and you conflate them although they are totally different. Note we are discussing God! Surprise?

dhw: We have no idea what level of reasoning your God has. We can only discuss YOUR reasoning, which ridicules him. I can offer you a different interpretation of his use of evolution, which is perfect if his purpose was to create a free-for-all and to make new discoveries. You reject that because although your Dr Jekyll think it is possible that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations and may have human attributes, your Mr Hyde refuses to believe that your God can enjoy anything because that would mean he has human attributes and he doesn’t have any.

The point you have distorted is God, as an unhuman, may not have any human tributes. I don't ridicule God as you interpret it. God is perfect.

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

dhw: No you don’t. You tell us that they may apply, they may not apply, and they definitely don’t apply. For example, you say he may want us to worship him, he may not want us to worship him, and he can't possibly want us to worship him (because he is selfless). It is you who have diagnosed your views on God as schizophrenic. Physician, heal thyself,

See above. God is not human and may have No human attributes. Start with that rule.

The Adler confusion

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.

DAVID: Adler will appear every time you break his rules.

dhw: I had no idea that his rules were that you must think of God as an inefficient designer who may have human attributes but definitely doesn’t have any.

Firstb rule. God is not human.