Purpose and design (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Friday, May 05, 2017, 01:32 (24 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You dismiss speculation about God’s purpose and nature on the grounds that this is just “human reasoning” about a non-human, as if your own dogmatic assertions concerning his one and only purpose were not your own human reasoning. The fact that humans, like life itself, appeared against all the odds does not provide a reasonable explanation for your God designing the weaverbird’s nest "in order to provide energy" etc. as quoted above.

DAVID: Your problem is seeing forest or trees. The nest is one tiny cog in energy production to allow evolution to continue to its current (or end) point.

dhw: To summarize this meandering discussion:
A. If you dismiss the boredom/loneliness hypothesis on the grounds that it is human reasoning about a non-human person, you will have to dismiss every single hypothesis about God’s purpose and nature, including your own.

B. Nobody knows the end point of evolution.

C. We have agreed over and over again on the obvious fact that evolution requires energy to continue from past to "current" to future (whatever it may be). That does not provide even the slightest support for the argument that God’s one and only purpose was to produce humans, and everything else was related to this purpose.

We should stop this discussion. A. I can decide on God's purpose without humanizing Him, and giving Him emotions.

B. I can decide on what I think the endpoint is.

C. Energy is a side issue you keep return to. The balance of nature relates to evolution and its endpoint only in that is supplies energy so it can continue. It does not prove humans are the endpoint and I have never said that.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum