God and Evolution (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Monday, August 27, 2018, 17:17 (105 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Not a straw man. you're the one who had Him looking into a crystal ball. And you have Him intervening or not intervening. Either He does what He wants or He can't.

You keep talking of advance planning, and that requires knowledge of the future. Why is that a limitation? Of course he does what he wants (if he exists). And if he wants a free-for-all in which he can intervene when he wants to, he is doing what he wants.

TONY: Well.....I think that is also putting a human way of thinking that I don't subscribe to. I think he does what he wants because he knows and wants whats best. I just don't think that our idea of what's best matches his idea of what's best, which causes us to question his motives and methods.
I try to take the approach of assuming that his approach is best, and then try to understand why his approach is best.

DHW: Your way of thinking is no less human than mine or David’s, and boils down to him wanting what is best, and whatever he thinks is best is best but we don’t know what it is.

Eh, that was a typo on my part. "I think that is also putting a human way of thinking that I don't subscribe to on God." Or, to put it differently, we think things should be done one way, and then question why he didn't do things OUR way. DHW would create cellular intelligence so he didn't have to do anything else. David would pre-plan, and possibly incorporate some mechanism for change through common descent. Well, why should God care what WE would do?

The question is, what did HE do, and why? What does the evidence say, sans fairy tale? Forget special creation, fiddling, twiddling, diddling, cellular intelligence, or programming etc. for a minute. What does the EVIDENCE say when we DON'T add a narrative to it?

We have dogs. We have cats. We have whales. We have rats. There is DNA, that codes proteins and regulates gene expression. There are complex, tightly controlled interactions between systems at every observable level that are so ubiquitous that they can be codified into repeatable, dependable sciences (Geology, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc). All of nature, organic and inorganic, follows tightly constrained rules and patterns that work together towards a harmonious whole(Mineral properties and cellular life). Systems that are physically separate demonstrate startling levels of two way interaction (flowers and bees, algae and atmosphere).

Taking a deconstructionist approach (which is the norm now) we can analyze each system as an individual, but in doing so we lose sight that the entirety also works as a singular unified system.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum