Purpose and design (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 20, 2017, 18:56 (218 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Since we both believe in evolution, obviously bipedalism was part of the process by which humans evolved from apelike ancestors. There is no “instead”. But according to you, every single step (i.e. innovation) in the evolution of all organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct was deliberately designed by your God, and yet you insist that his ONLY purpose was to produce humans. This doesn’t make sense, and no amount of obfuscation about balance of nature and preference will make it any more logical.

I know it doesn't make sense to you, because you don't look at evolution as I do. Does evolution advance for the sake of advancing? Or is it an adaptive response to challenges of nature? For the sake of this argument my choice is to say it is a response to challenges. Our ancestors were monkeys and apes. Over 23 million years they have not significantly changed, but for some unknown reason a line developed that became us. I don't see a driving force in natural challenges, do you? Is it happenstance (chance)? The odds say very unlikely. I am convinced God is the force, and humans his goal. Very straightforward reasoning.


DAVID: I've been taught in my reading not to approach God as a person as we know persons. I study His works for purpose, not for his underlying reasons, since they are not approachable. When you question me as to God's motives, I've politely given you my off-the-cuff guesses, which are not set in stone, although that is the way you seem to approach them as you throw them back at me. […] God, as a personage, remains concealed, which also bothers you. I'm not bothered. The evidence tells me God exists and that alone is enough to satisfy me.

dhw: My problem is not with your conviction that God exists but with your refusal to consider any other possible reading of your God’s mind that would remove the illogicality of your basic anthropocentric premise, which does seem to be set in stone.

Of course set in stone. That is why we debate.

dhw: Purpose IS the underlying reason for any action. You are clearly not averse to speculating on God’s nature – your certainty that God is pleased/not pleased was offered quite spontaneously – but you erect the humanization/unknowability barriers the moment your basic premise is challenged. And frankly, since we cannot KNOW any of the answers, I see no sense either in your allowing yourself to conjecture that all God wanted was to produce humans, but in not allowing conjecture as to why he might have wanted to produce humans.

Of course we can debate his reasons or thought. We have, but when I point out to you that it is like the number of angels on the head of a pin, you get upset. But that is all that debate can be. Why don't you realize that point?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum