Return to David's theory of evolution, theodicy and purposes (Evolution)

by David Turell , Friday, November 08, 2024, 18:34 (13 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: What you presented for reason and purpose in the context of the sentences you presented the words were interchangeable. This is semantics! Not the level I am discussing. God must have a background reason for His overt purpose. Here reason and purpose are not the same! I'm asking why did God choose His obvious purpose. Stop your word games.

dhw: According to you, his “obvious purpose” was to create us and our food. Your next question was: why (= for what purpose or reason) did God choose to create us and our food? Your various answers have included possible escape from boredom, desire for a relationship with us, recognition, worship...You then asked “why must God have a reason?” after which you told us “There must be an underlying reason”!!! In all cases, the words “reason” and “purpose” are synonymous, so please stop playing silly word games.

You still don't follow my thoughts. You have used reason and purpose synonymously correctly. I am asking for an underlying conceptual reason that creates God's overt action to produce a purpose. Here reason and purpose differ.

DAVID: God's love is a human wish and disturbs me since God is not human. Remember Adler's use of allegorical meanings to solve your problems.
And:
DAVID: I knew exactly what Adler meant! Just as we agreed! We do not know how God views the word 'love'.

dhw: There is no “allegory”. We agreed long ago that the question is not whether God has a different dictionary from ours, but whether he loves us in accordance with what WE mean by “love”.

DAVID: That is how Adler uses allegory.

dhw: A strange use of the word, but since we agree that the question is whether he loves us according to what we mean by love, there is nothing to argue about.

Agreed.

99.9% v 0.1%

dhw: So you really do believe that 99.9 different species were the mummies and daddies of the 0.1 survivors. I guess they do certain things differently in Texas.

DAVID: My analysis of statistical evolution and yours differ.

dhw: They don’t differ when you agree that we and our food are descended from the 0.1% of survivors, but they differ when you say that we are descended from the 99.9% that produced no survivors although they were the mummies and daddies of the survivors. Please stop this nonsense.

I am only following Raup's presentation.

DAVID: Now to feet elevated.

dhw: My thoughts are with you all the way on this subject. I hope all will go well.

It is so far.