Watching asteroids; possible damage (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, March 12, 2017, 10:52 (2814 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Of course his personality and indeed his existence are unknowable. Currently nobody knows how life originated, how evolutionary innovation happened, what preceded the Big Bang (if that happened), or if there is life after death. That is why we examine the evidence and speculate with our hypotheses. However, you also presume at various times – with authoritative statements – that your God’s purpose was to create humans, he knew exactly how to achieve his purpose, he does not have a smidgen of evil in him, and he does not experiment. These presumptions form the rigid basis of all your evolutionary theories, and they are wide open to question, since you cannot know any of these things.
DAVID: I know we are discussing possibilities, but some of what you question are things I believe as I worked through my research from my early agnostic position. I know I can't convince you of my conclusions, some of which are naturally very rigid.

Of course I am questioning some of your beliefs and your rigid conclusions. And I do not accept the argument that I shouldn’t question them because God’s intentions and nature are unknowable, although you yourself make all the above presumptions.

dhw: We would like to know if there is a God or not. You emphasize that you study cosmology, biology and the history of life on Earth and conclude that there is a God, although this is something we cannot “know”. You would also like to know why he produced life/humans, and I would like to know his nature, but suddenly you object if we study cosmology, biology and the history of life on Earth and extrapolate hypotheses (but not conclusions) from our observations.
DAVID: I never object to covering studies as you list. It is obvious our conclusions differ as we each emphasize different facts.

But you do object when I challenge your views on God’s intentions and nature, on the grounds that they are unknowable, even though you think you know at least some of them.

DAVID: Because I do make sense to me, and you persist in misinterpreting my comments. All you are referencing are parts of a very necessary balance of nature. Yes, some of the developments make no sense on the surface, but they all contribute to balance. That is my true thought.
dhw: But you have agreed that the balance of nature means nothing more than the continuation of life. By your own admission, the only sense you have been able to make of the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution is that your God couldn’t do it any other way and had to keep dabbling to make sure it was heading in the right direction.
DAVID: I have always said pre-planning and/or dabbling. Those are alternatives, because I do not know if He has any limitations, which He may have.

Precisely. According to you, God had to design the weaverbird’s nest, the frog’s tongue and the monarch’s lifestyle etc. in order to keep life going (“balance of nature”) until he could dabble with the pre-human brain. But this only makes sense to you if his powers are limited, and you don’t know if his powers are limited, so you don’t know if it makes sense. What have I misinterpreted?

dhw: As for organisms, either they have the ability to invent their own lifestyles and wonders (but you don’t accept that any of your examples could have been autonomously designed by the organisms), or your God didn’t know what he was doing and had to keep making corrections (but you don’t accept that your God was experimenting)… These are some of the illogicalities which, again as you yourself have admitted, lead you to wander all over the place. But do please tell me what I have misinterpreted.
DAVID: Totally misinterpreted: see above. Pre-planning and dabbling have always been alternative possibilities, since I am not sure how all-powerful He is.

If he “had to” dabble, it could only be because either those wretched autonomous organisms had got it wrong, or his plans weren’t working out (so he got it wrong). Why is this a misinterpretation?

DAVID: Remember I think He used evolutionary processes at all levels; universe forming, solar system forming, Earth forming, life forming, evolution of humans. All we see is evolutionary processes at each step. Yes?

Yes. We both believe in evolution, and so if God exists, he used evolutionary processes. But you have left out of your summary every (theistic) point at issue between us: the fact that he used evolutionary processes does not mean his purpose from the very beginning was to produce humans, and it does not mean he had to design every life form, lifestyle and natural wonder before he could fulfil that purpose. Your last statement is spot on: “all we see is evolutionary processes at each step”. Even Dawkins would agree.