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

by dhw, Thursday, May 09, 2024, 08:33 (11 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: HOW DO YOU KNOW He is in any sense human? What God does is only for His purposes which do not include self-gratifying thoughts or desires.

dhw: I don’t even know if he exists, and if he does, I have no more knowledge about his purposes, methods or nature than you have. That is why I have focused entirely on your OWN proposals, as listed above. And now you pretend to know that he has no self-gratifying thoughts or desires. But you refuse to acknowledge that this guess is a direct contradiction of your earlier guesses.

DAVID: All guesses, no substance!!! You can't assume I know God intimately! I start with a concept of a God who is selfless, who creates with purpose, satisfying no particular desires.

Of course you don’t know him intimately, so your guess that he is selfless and has no particular desires is no more justified than your guess that he self-centredly wants to be worshipped, and he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. They are all “guesses”, and yours directly contradict one another.

dhw: What rules are you following, that make you reject your own proposals (“certainly not human in any sense”)?

DAVID: Simple. God is a personage like no other person. Descriptive terms must be used allegorically.

dhw: We can agree that if God exists, he is not a human being. As far as words are concerned, we humans invented them, and we know precisely what they mean. There is no “allegory”. But we don’t know whether they apply to him – i.e. does he want to be worshipped, does he enjoy, is he interested etc.? Now please tell us what “rules” you follow that make you reject your own proposals.

The rule seems to be that your guesses of yesterday (worship, enjoy, interest etc.) must be ignored if they conflict with your “guesses” of today (he is selfless and has no desires).

Evolution

dhw: For the thousandth time, the dispute is not over Adler’s proof that God exists, but over your belief bolded above. […]

DAVID: Your usual irrational contortion. Every step in evolution was necessary to produce the present result. It is your obvious attempt to denigrate God.

dhw: You have repeatedly agreed that 99.9% of species did NOT lead to the present result, which is the product of the 0.1% of lines that survived. That is why YOU denigrate your God’s combination of purpose and method as messy, cumbersome and inefficient. I am not denigrating your God by pointing out how your illogical theory denigrates your God!

DAVID: Your distortion of God's evolutionary process denigrates God, whether you mean to or not.

It is YOUR version of your God’s evolutionary process that YOU denigrate as messy and inefficient. And I have no idea why you think it denigrates God to “guess” that he might have created a free-for-all, or experimented, out of a desire to create something he would be interested in. And to forestall your usual complaint, why is that more “humanizing” than the “guess” that he might want to be recognized and worshipped?

dhw […] in post after post on this forum, you turn your back on logic and rely on faith in irrational and confusing theories. You also criticize atheists for precisely the same approach as your own: they first choose a theory they wish to believe in, and the rest follows. It’s what we call double standards.

DAVID: […] I see God as a selfless producer of our reality. My guesses as His thoughts are answers to your constantly probing questions which are purposely posed as being really not answerable.

dhw: If God exists, it is reasonable to assume that he had a purpose for creating life. Nobody “knows” anything, but if you present us with theories, you can hardly expect me to ignore them, or to swallow them whole. You gave honest answers to my questions, and it’s not my fault if you keep contradicting yourself.

DAVID: I don't contradict. You distort the conclusions.

I’ve given you whole lists of contradictions, including those earlier in this post, and as I wrote yesterday: "Your whole messed-up “theology” is encapsulated by your two statements that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, but he is certainly not human in any sense. And the endless contradictions stem from your self-confessed approach to all matters concerning your God’s purpose, method and nature: ”I first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.”

DAVID: You ask me to explain God and ask pointed questions as if I directly represent a known God. I represent my version of my God, a selfless producer of the reality He wishes to produce.

I do not ask you to explain God. I ask you to explain your theories/guesses about God. We agree that if he exists, he must have had a purpose for creating life. I ask why he had to create the irrelevant 99.9%. You can’t think of a single reason. Why might he have wanted to create us? You guess he wants us to recognize and worship him, but next day he doesn’t because he’s selfless. One day he certainly enjoys creating, but the next he doesn’t, because he’s not human in any sense. (Discussion continued under “More miscellany”.)