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

by David Turell , Saturday, May 04, 2024, 18:28 (14 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The word personage was used allegorically as applied to God to indicate He has some sort of personality, certainly not human in any sense.

dhw: How in heaven’s name do you - who think he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours - know for certain that he does not have thought patterns and emotions like ours? How do you know for certain that he doesn’t love you, enjoy creating, or want to be worshipped?

Your question exposes the problem. We don't know if God resembles us in any way.

DAVID: There are rules to follow like allegorical thought which bother you so much, as just below:

dhw: Only your God can “make rules” about God! And there is no “allegory” or symbolism in the above attributes. We both know what we mean by enjoy, love, interest etc. An “allegorical” God would be an invented symbol like Faithful and Hopeful in Pilgrim’s Progress.

DAVID: You must handle those words allegorically, but you can't make yourself accept it. You are fighting the training I received. Open your illogically closed mind.
And:
DAVID: My theology is a system of thoughts and theories and beliefs that hang together logically for me, by the rules I follow. Since you don't know the rules, you don't follow my conclusions.

dhw: Yes indeed, I am fighting what you call your training. What rules compel you to invent/choose an inefficient designer God who probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours but can’t possibly have thought patterns and emotions like ours, who might want to be worshipped but can’t possibly want to be worshipped, who certainly enjoys but can’t possibly enjoy etc., all because when you choose to use those words, they can’t possibly mean what you mean by them?

Same obstacle in your thinking. We cannot know how or if our descriptive terms can somehow apply to God, who is not human. It is very possible God just creates with purpose but without emotions.

DAVID: I do not WANT my God to HAVE humans as His purpose! That is a logical conclusion from the known facts about evolution as to His purpose and Adler supports me.

dhw: But you attach this "logical conclusion" to your belief that your God also inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. Does Adler support you?

How God conduced evolution is part of my analysis of history as God's work. I reject our analysis of evolution as God shucking things He didn't want. I view all of evolution as God's purposeful result.

DAVID: Your same old tired complaint. God chose to evolve us. That is history assuming God in charge.

dhw: As usual, you leave out the 99.9% of species which did not lead to us plus food but which your God "chose to evolve" (= specially design) and to cull – a theory which you have told us Adler does not even mention, and which only your God can explain. One of your familiar dodges.

To the contrary, Adler used natural (Darwinian) evolution to show the appearance of humans proved God must exist. Nature could not produce us naturally. Adler and I had the same 'culling' view.

DAVID: The answer to theodicy is given: what God produced was from a morally sufficient reason. Life requires those bugs. These is no blame, accept as you imagine it.

dhw: You have forgotten the “if”: IF God had a morally sufficient reason for allowing/creating evil, then it would be justified. All you’ve proposed is that he and we would be bored without it, but his not wanting to be bored makes him self-centred, which is against your self-imposed “rules”. As regards murderous bugs you wrote: “What is fair is to blame God for natural disasters: earthquakes, terrible storms, and bugs causing diseases[/i]…”

Pick and choose statements out of context, your usual ploy. The issue was human boredom in
Eden, not GOD'S. we do not know if God can be bored!!!

DAVID (taken from “More miscellany”): Blame in sense because they are His true invention.

dhw: Just as our free will is his “true invention”. So he knew his two true inventions would lead to rape, murder, and millions of painful deaths. I can understand why you think it’s fair to blame him. And I’m still waiting to hear the “morally sufficient reason” that would justify the havoc.

Ask God. Morally sufficient is a human concept to explain God's actions. Your usual ploy is a dodge asking for God's reasons. For believers it is enough to assume God had good reason. As an outsider you still don't know how to think about God in an acceptable way. Allegorical meanings must be used.