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

by David Turell , Saturday, August 24, 2024, 18:33 (23 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I am not arguing with Adler. You said your schizophrenic conclusions were your own, not his.

DAVID: Yes, not Adler's views. But from Adler we are told God is not human in any way.

dhw: That is one of the arguments you propose, and yet you categorically “reject deism. God made us. He must care about the results.” You have told us that Adler thinks the chances are 50/50 that God cares. I don’t know if Adler contradicts himself, but you certainly do. How can God care about us if he has no human attributes?

Human attributes as applied to God land us in unknown territory. Since God is supernatural how He might 'care' in His sense is an unknown.

DAVID: If we apply any human attributes, they must be considered in allegorical terms, an approach that upsets you. And all it means is that there is a vast difference between God and humans.

dhw: Of course there is a vast difference, but that does not mean he has no human attributes. You know what you mean by “God must care”. Either he does or he doesn’t. You say he must do, but he can’t. That is a contradiction.

Explained above.

DAVID: The only direct comparison is that we both have minds and can think. But God's thoughts must be beyond any type of thinking we can imagine.

dhw: Why? You have proposed that he might have created life and us because he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and he may want us to recognize and worship him. They are all reasonable motives, just as it is reasonable to suppose that a creator might endow his creations with some of his own attributes. You have agreed explicitly that he may have thought patterns and emotions like ours, but then you say he can’t have thought patterns and emotions like ours. A blatant contradiction.

My listed proposals as above are reasonable thoughts, BUT I never said, "he can’t have thought patterns and emotions like ours." Your distortion again. However He acts within those attributes may be totally different than our actions.

DAVID: Adler never told me not to be critical of God's actions. The now bold "imperfect, inefficient use of evolution" is your perversion of my statements. I said God used a cumbersome evolutionary method to achieve a perfect goal, us!

dhw: And you have also used the adjectives imperfect, messy and inefficient. What is a “perfect goal”? Your God’s goal could have been a free-for-all, and he invented a perfectly efficient way of achieving it. Your concept of bacteria, viruses and molecules and humans as being “free” to do nasty things could mean that he is either incompetent or he wanted the free-for-all he produced. But you insist that we were his goal, and that he invented an imperfect, inefficient method to achieve it. Maybe your theory is wrong, and he is not as inefficient as you make him out to be.

He is not inefficient: He made a universe, created life, and His form of evolution created us, the most complex item in His universe. My problem is wondering why the Cambrian animals were directly created and then direct creation stopped.

DAVID: What I wish for God, from God are all human wishful thinking. My standard view of a perfect God who is selfless: " God is perfect, selfless, and in no way has human attributes. He did not create us to satisfy His own needs, because He has none."

dhw: So all this perfection is what you wish for, but since God is unknowable, you might be wrong, and so you might be right when you theorize that in addition to human attributes like benevolence and caring, he might have others, such as those you have proposed: enjoyment and interest and a desire for recognition and worship. You say it’s possible...and you say it’s not possible. But you never contradict yourself.

I contradict myself only in your mind. " However He acts within those attributes may be totally different than our actions." Allegorical considerations must be applied.

Theodicy

dhw: Why do you think he wanted to test our brilliant brains? […]

DAVID: He knew we would be of great help in the evil problem.
And:
DAVID: Knowing there would be problems and producing us to help, seems a reasonable solution.

dhw: So he thought we might be able to solve a problem which he couldn’t solve for himself. It’s an original view of a God who is supposed to be perfect, omnipotent and omniscient. In any case, you have said he was testing us – and elsewhere, it was a challenge. That’s not the same as asking for help. Why do you think he would want to test or challenge us?

He gave us the brains which could help solve the problems. Test or challenge are appropriate thoughts.