God and Evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, February 04, 2019, 13:24 (17 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 1) Can you explain why we are here? I have a very different series of logical thoughts than you do. 2) If survival drives evolution as you believe (an irrational theory never proven), we have no need to be here battling on our computers, evolved way beyond survival necessity! We are a totally unexpected miraculous result. 3) So once again you have questioned God's choice of method. Either He had to do it this way or He chose the method, no way of telling!

dhw: 1) If God exists, then I would assume that whatever is/was here is what he wanted to be here: i.e. the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution, including us. See below for a possible "why" in your own words.

DAVID: Thanks for accepting what I believe following the 'if'.

It’s I who must thank you for agreeing that your God presumably wanted the higgledy-piggledy bush, including us (as opposed to his only wanting us). I am not opposed to his wanting us. It is the combination of your hypotheses that even you can't understand.

dhw: 2) There is nothing irrational in arguing that the purpose of fins, camouflage and migration is to improve organisms’ chances of survival, and purpose is a driving force (which you yourself have called an “immediate” driving force). We have agreed ad nauseam that NO multicellular species were “necessary” for life to continue, since bacteria have survived unscathed. They are all “miraculous”, as indeed are bacteria (which are also driven to change their structure in order to survive changing conditions). I would suggest that multicellularity initiated innovation. We don’t know how – hence the different theories, such as random mutations, cellular intelligence, divine dabbling, or a 3.8-billion-year-old library of instructions which apparently cells go into, with instructions telling them which of the billions of instructions to obey.

DAVID: Generally agree.

So please stop arguing that an immediate driving force is not a driving force, and that humans (like every other multicellular organism) were not “necessary”, and that means humans were your God’s one and only purpose.

dhw: 3) Once again I am not questioning your God, I am questioning your interpretation of his purpose and method.

DAVID: I know your questioning ignores just accepting history and instead trying on totally human versions of God. You don't want to accept humans as His prime purpose . I view it as His singular purpose.

Yet again: history is the existence of all life forms past and present, which I accept. Causes and purposes are speculation, and my questioning concerns the rationality of your guesses. Prime = there are others. Singular = only one. One moment your God is in full control and his singular purpose is to produce us, so why spend 3.5+ billion years specially designing so many other life forms, styles, wonders? The next minute you say that maybe he has limits: fine, that = he is not in full control, or maybe his singular purpose wasn’t us, and/or maybe he didn’t specially design all the other forms. Those are not “human versions of your God” – they are challenges to your reasoning, and the different, logical theistic hypotheses I have offered you are no more “human” than your God “choosing” to do it your way, even though you don’t understand why. But see below for the “human” follow up.

dhw; […] if you are sure he watches everything he created, like an artist enjoying his own paintings, then it is possible that he created everything - not just humans - for his own enjoyment (your word, not mine), and that general freedom would enhance the interest.

DAVID: You constantly want God to be human in His reasons for creating and to make things for His enjoyment. Nothing on Earth knows about God but us. From that fact it is easy to reason that He might have wanted that relationship, but note, He is hidden, so it requires a special kind of relationship in which we must come to realize He has to exist. That is what theology is all about. You have not come to that realization.

I don’t “want” God to be human. You keep harping on about purpose, and how can you possibly speculate on purpose without using human terms? Maybe you are right that he wants us to realize that he exists, wants a relationship with us, wants us to admire his work (another of your ideas), and also enjoys his other creations (one of my ideas, which you are certain is correct). Nothing wrong with such “human” possibilities, so why pooh-pooh your own speculations as if they weren’t as “human” as mine? And yes, he is hidden, so we CAN only speculate. That is what theology is all about, but you have not come to that realization.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum