Divine purposes and methods (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, December 12, 2018, 11:09 (2171 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You have agreed that my four explanatory theistic hypotheses (he didn’t specially design every lifestyle, econiche etc.; humans were not his one and only purpose; humans were his purpose but he didn’t know how to make us; humans only became a purpose later on in the process of evolution) are logical and fit the history of life as we know it. I am not asking you to believe any of these explanations, but I can’t understand why you stick so firmly to a hypothesis which you yourself find inexplicable.

DAVID: I do not find it inexplicable. Econiche food supply is perfectly reasonable to explain God's choice of method. What I cannot explain is why He chose this method, but I don't try.

You can’t explain his choice of method, but econiche food supply explains his choice of method? What you can’t explain is why, despite his full control, he chose to take 3.5+ billion years specially designing every innovation, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder for the sole purpose of providing food until he specially designed H. sapiens, his one and only purpose. But although you can’t explain your own guesswork (your term) hypothesis, you “accept” it, and you refuse to consider the possibility that one or other of the above explanatory guesses (which you agree all provide logical explanations) might be true.

dhw: I see no reason why he should not be as fascinated by the diversity of life forms and natural wonders, the variety of experiences and emotions (especially through humans), and the unpredictability of the spectacle as we are, and for all we know, this may be a learning process for him as well.

DAVID: Why should He be fascinated by what He creates? He knows what they are! My attempt at interpretation is not the humanizing you do.

You have missed the point. The fascination would lie in the unpredictable products of the autonomous evolutionary mechanism he created (theistic version), mirroring the unpredictability of humans with their free will. You humanize him by telling us that his only purpose was to create H. sapiens, who would think about him and have a relationship with him. I humanize him by suggesting that as first cause he had nothing to occupy his mind, and so he created the mechanisms for life and evolution. Wouldn’t you say that both hypotheses suggest a very human desire to end his isolation?

DAVID: I'm only attempting to interpret God's chosen mechanisms. I've offered reasonable explanations, which you refuse to accept, because you interpret Him as quite human and if so, He would have done it differently. God IS NOT human.

Your usual get-out, followed by my usual response: of course God is not human, but that does not mean he has no characteristics in common with us (especially if we are supposed to be in his image). See above. As for your “reasonable explanations”, I do not accept them for the same reason as you can’t understand them, i.e. why he would have chosen your guessed-at method to achieve your guessed-at goal. See my first comment above.