Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, January 29, 2025, 17:50 (1 day, 3 hours, 49 min. ago) @ dhw

Theology

God and evolution

DAVID: Because my God is never human in any way, but may have attributes that seem humanoid.

dhw: You believe that your inefficient God may or may not love us, enjoy creating life and be interested in his creations, want a relationship with us, want to be recognized and worshipped, have thought patterns and emotions like ours…but he is never human in any way, and you never contradict yourself although you describe your beliefs as “schizophrenic”.

When I ascribe all of those ideas to God's personality, I know I am applying human concepts to a non-human God. Result is we do not know if any apply!

DAVID: I don't know why He chose to use evolution to produce us.

dhw: And you don’t know why, according to you, he chose to specially design and then cull 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us, but you cannot bear the thought that your theory about his inefficiency might be wrong.

The now bolded is you constant complaint that God used evolution. We both agree it is an indirect method. That does not negate the theory God wanted to produce humans.

Balance of Nature: human

DAVID: Note, it is ASK Brazil! India and China are already defying the world it increased coal use the dirtiest of all.

dhw: So do you approve of their use of coal or do you think they should be encouraged to find alternative, cleaner forms of fuel as quickly as possible?

I said 'dirtiest'. I wish they would switch.

DAVID: You spew Guardian propaganda unwittily. I specifically suggested you get some knowledge of the nitty gritty instead of your cook book propagandist point of view.

dhw: Please stop pretending that every scientist who identifies the harmful effects of fossil fuels, deforestation, and current modes of transport and agriculture has no knowledge of the nitty gritty. You know as well as I do that throughout the world there are cities, fields, rivers and oceans whose pollution is a constant threat to the health of humans and all other species. You are in favour of drill, baby, drill because it serves the economic interests of your country, and I am all in favour of action being tailored to prevent economic and social catastrophe, but I would suggest that the ultimate approach to reducing the damage in every continent and country should not be determined solely by what is best for the American economy in the here and now. Your NA loggers would agree.

DAVID: All of the world's leading countries are in economic competition with each other which will continue. Don't pretend we all play nice with each other.

dhw: The fact that we do not play nice with one another is the whole problem, which the Paris agreement was an attempt to solve. Read my bold above. There has to be a balance. Do you agree or disagree that China and India should reduce their dependence on coal as quickly as possible, or would you tell them “drill, baby, drill”?

Drill baby drill is not dirty. We get lots of relatively clean LNG from it. I'm against dig baby dig which is filthy

DAVID: The so-called peril is in a distant future hundred of years from now.

dhw: Do you deny that current practices are already harming the environment? If you don't deny it [correction to my original entry!], then once more: do you not accept that their continuation can only result in more damage? Do you not think it is better to reduce the damage as quickly as pragmatically possible, rather than as slowly as you like? Forget about prophecies. Nobody can possibly know what will happen a few hundred years from now.

DAVID: Exactly my point: " Nobody can possibly know what will happen a few hundred years from now."

dhw: But we do know what is happening now, so please answer my three questions.

I think answered. I'm still with a slow reasonable economic response.