Watching asteroids; possible damage (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, March 12, 2017, 20:20 (2814 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: 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.[/i]

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.

dhw 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.

Of course I make assumptions. Your questions goad me and I think things through and reach what I think are logical possibilities. My presumption answer your questions as far as I can logically.

DAVID: I never object to covering studies as you list. It is obvious our conclusions differ as we each emphasize different facts.

dhw: 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.

Based on historical evidence I look for His purpose only, not His personal thinking or personal desires.

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.

dhw: 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?

You are conflating two issues. Yes, He had to design complex lifestyles to maintain a balance of nature, only to allow life's evolution to continue. See the book Nature's IQ . But His limits, if any, have nothing to do with His designs. That is why I propose pre-planning with a back-up of dabbling, if necessary.

dhw: 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?

It is a question of 'is He limited in any way'? Since I admit I can't know, dabbling is the back-up, nothing more. Your statement overstates it. He may not need any dabbles.

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?

dhw: 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.

I fully accept the fact that humans are here without a need for them and against all odds. That means purpose for evolution. And you've agreed balance of nature supplied the energy for life to evolve. Evolution was His choice to produce His desired results. Humans are an obvious endpoint, having been around for 200,000 years without changing, after previous rapid advances.