Unanswered questions (General)

by David Turell , Saturday, May 18, 2019, 16:12 (2014 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, May 18, 2019, 16:20

dhw: [...] you have “no idea” why your God would choose this method of designing H. sapiens.

DAVID: I simply accept it as God's choice.

dhw: You do not accept it as God’s choice. You accept your own interpretation of God’s choice, even though you have no idea why he would make such a choice.

DAVID: We view God entirely differently. As stated in the other thread, God has the perfect right to decide to evolve humans from previously evolved organisms.

dhw: Which does not explain why he also “evolved” (which according to you means specially designed) a billion other non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders.

Because that is how evolution works, from simple organisms to complex, which wsas God's choice of a creation process.

DAVID: I have explained over and over the need for ecosystems to feed the existing individuals in ongoing evolution.

dhw: And that has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of why an always-in-control God specially designed all these econiches and non-human life forms etc. when his only purpose was to specially design H. sapiens. You simply refuse to acknowledge that it is the COMBINATION of your hypotheses that makes no sense, even though you admit that you have “no idea” why he would have chosen your “method”.

You have again reproduced your mantra. God chose the method of creation by evolving all forms from the start of life to humans; I have chosen nothing except to accept God's obvious choice of action. Do you remember I believe in God?

dhw: I accept our exceptionality. I do not accept that your God specially designed every single life form, and did so in order that they should eat or not one another until he specially designed H. sapiens.

DAVID: Fine, noting you don't accept God, but don't reject Him either. that makes your view of Him different than mine.

dhw: An agnostic has just as much right as a theist to interpret a possible God’s purposes and methods, and my agnosticism does not in any way invalidate the arguments I advance against your own personal interpretation of these. In fact I suspect quite a few theists would have trouble “accepting” your version of your God’s choice.

DAVID: I have my own personal view of God.I doubt many other theists would agree with me. This is not an election of concept by a vote of views

dhw: My point was that my agnosticism is totally irrelevant to the arguments I advance against your personal and illogical interpretation of your God’s purpose and method. Clearly other theists would also disagree with you. Let's just stick to the arguments.

Why won't you allow me to have my own theological views? Your objections are totally illogical, once it is accepted that God chose to evolve everything, and you've agreed if He is in charge, He can do just that. What you want is a God who set evolution in motion and allowed it freedom to evolve any way it wanted. But in allowing for dabbles, you really admit God is in charge to do whatever He wants. Your approach is totally incomprehensible as applied to theism. It is either/or. God is in charge of evolution or He isn't. I view Him in total charge and managing every stage of evolution as we know it. It is my explanation of speciation.