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

by dhw, Wednesday, September 25, 2024, 11:11 (57 days ago) @ David Turell

Schools of theology

In March 2024 we had this exchange:

DAVID: I follow theistic thinking as presented by several sources. I have never found the sort of God you describe in any of it.

I pointed out that my proposals included aspects of deism and process theology.

DAVID: Process and deist theologies are not mainstream, and not worth using.

In September you again accuse me of ignoring “schools of human thoughts about theology”, and I remind you about deism and process theology, and then you proudly announce:

DAVID: No schools think as I do.

From following several schools of theological thought in March. you have now rejected them all! Next you accuse me of ignoring schools of theological thought although I have already named two which you have dismissed, as if not being mainstream disqualified them.But no schools think as you do, so why don't you dismiss your thoughts as not being mainstream? You have acknowledged that your approach to God is schizophrenic, but you also claim that you never contradict yourself. I respect your faith, and I acknowledge the powerful argument you make for design, but your way of thinking about your God has led you to endless contradictions. Maybe it's time for a rethink?

Humanization

DAVID: My non-human God can be compared to my dog in the sense that non-human individuals can logically have human-like attributes without in any way be human.

If they have human-like attributes, they are like humans in those particular ways, but that does not mean your dog or your God is human. For instance, your beliefs that your God is benevolent, or might enjoy creating, or might want to be recognized and worshipped, are all human-like attributes but they do not “humanize” him, any more than your dog’s love for you and desire to be loved by you make him a human being.

Starting point

dhw: Your self-confessed starting point is the God you wish to believe in, and it leads you to endless contradictions: [I shan’t repeat the long list here]... My starting point is total ignorance, even regarding your God’s existence, and I offer alternative, feasible views of his possible nature, purposes and methods if he does exist.

DAVID: You have always presented a highly humanized God. He did His work and is gone or He is still changing. I am quite happy with the God I envision.

For “humanization” see above. “Did his work and is gone” smacks of deism; “still changing” smacks of process theology. You obviously hadn’t realized that you had not ignored all schools of theological thought! The fact that you are happy with all the blatant contradictions which you describe as “schizophrenic” in your vision of God does not make that vision even remotely feasible.

99.9% v 0.1%

DAVID: Of course, we are part of the surviving 0.1% which descended from the 99.9% now extinct.

Please explain why you were insane when you agreed that we are only descended from the 0.1% of survivors? Please explain why, as part of what you call the statistics of “all species lumped together”, we should ignore your own theory that 100% of pre-Cambrian species were not our ancestors, and 99.43% (or possibly 100%) of dinosaurs were not our ancestors.

Theodicy

dhw: Your omniscient God gave us free will, knowing that we would use it to commit evil. How does that make him all-good? If he needed help in correcting problems he was forced to create, how does that make him all-powerful? You have blamed him for creating natural disasters and murderous bugs. Please tell us why you blame him. What authority do you have for claiming that your God did not deliberately create good and evil in order to avoid the boredom of a Garden of Eden? (April this year: “DAVID: That God did not want a boring Garden of Eden for us, is a reasonable guess.”) How did you gain such access to your God’s way of thinking, bearing in mind that no schools of theology think as you do? And why do you keep asking me what experts/schools of theology support my alternatives when you boast that your theories are entirely your own?!

Almost all of these questions remain unanswered.

DAVID: You finally described your schools of thought. And that supports your humanizing of God.

Dealt with above.

DAVID: In April I suggested Eden as 'a reasonable guess' and you present it as if I accepted it as full fact. Shame on you.

I did no such thing, and shame on you for pretending that I did. You offered it as a reasonable guess, but then you categorically rejected your own guess, as above, now bolded.

DAVID: I look at God as presenting a challenging form of life. We have the God-given brains for it.

Now you’ve gone back to the challenge or test theory, which suggests the deliberate creation of evil to see if we could conquer it with our brains. And somehow that is meant to confirm that your God is all-powerful and all-good.