Big brain evolution: our mutation rate is slowing (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, January 27, 2019, 12:13 (173 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I accept history that we evolved and since I accept God as existing, I accept He did it His way. You, without accepting God, have concluded God made an illogical judgment.

dhw: Yet again, no, no, no. I have concluded that your interpretation of God’s way is illogical, and so have you but you try to gloss it over by misrepresenting the argument, as now bolded above. So please don’t tell me that I am questioning your God’s logic.

DAVID: You have not accepted the history of God's actions as not only representing God's actions but his decision to do it that way. Why is it illogical to conclude He decided to use that method as factual history presents?

And yet again, no, no, no, I have not accepted your interpretation of the factual history or of God’s method. The factual history is confined to the existence of past and present organisms including ourselves as the latest known species.

DAVID: Accepting God is fully in charge opens your issue of immediate creation or why He waited. Could it be He is limited in what He can create? Possible, but it is an unprovable speculation. That He is so powerful He should have taken six days is also speculation, but in this case we know it didn't happen that way, so the best view is simply accept the history and conclude it was God's decision to use Evolution, and that leaves the all-powerful concept of God intact.

All our speculations are unprovable. You cannot explain why he waited 3.5+ billion years to do the only thing he wanted to do. If the reason was limited power, then he is not all powerful. But if he is all powerful, then it makes no sense to say he only wanted one thing, was perfectly capable of doing it, but didn’t do it. The best view is to accept the limitations of the factual history as above, and look for possible explanations that do make sense. I have offered you several theistic explanations, all of which you have agreed are logical (I’ll repeat them if you want me to), but you refuse to consider them.

DAVID: I am using an Occam approach of a simple explanation based on fact. Evolution happened. God used it. Nothing illogical.

If God exists, of course he used evolution, and the question is how he used it, and what he used it for. There is nothing simple about an answer which even you find inexplicable.

DAVID: I have agreed that God watches with interest as He evolves everyone, but with involved interest as a creator, not a spectator.

dhw: If God exists, then of course he is the creator, but what makes you think a creator cannot also be a spectator watching the spectacle he creates?

DAVID: Of course He is a spectator to His creation, but there is no evidence He desired a spectacle for His 'enjoyment', one of your favorite humanizing suppositions about God. I'm simply in interpreting what history shows us.

dhw: Of course there’s no evidence of what he desires (assuming he even exists). Where is your evidence for the illogical hypotheses bolded above? You harp on about purpose, and you agree that he watches the spectacle with interest. Then let’s drop the word “enjoyment”. Now please tell me why you think he finds it interesting.

DAVID: We have free will, which means we humans might do the unexpected, even by Him. I'm in no position to know if God sees the future and can predict our actions. We are in the position to blow ourselves up, and He will have to start again.

But the spectacle began long, long before we even existed. Are you saying that he didn’t watch what you believe to have been all his special designs with interest? If you think he might be interested in the “unexpected”, wouldn’t it also be interesting for him to give evolution itself a free rein to see what unexpected forms of life might evolve? Why would he specially design 3.5+ billion years' worth of innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders if they were of no interest to him?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum