Unanswered questions (General)

by David Turell , Thursday, August 29, 2019, 00:43 (1912 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Remember, Evolution requires starting with simple forms and finally reaching the most complex. It is a continuous process, and your comment implies He should have jumped to his goal. My answer above covers this.

dhw: As usual you start with an obvious truth and leave out all the bits of your theory that defy even your own logic. My answer is quite explicit: if his one and only goal was to “evolve” H. sapiens, it makes no sense at all to have him decide NOT to begin “evolving” H. sapiens, but instead to evolve billions of non-human life forms extant and extinct to keep life going until he “evolved” the only thing he wanted to “evolve”. (NB for you “evolve” = individually design).

Yes, for me God designed all of evolution. Your version of God wants to jump right to humans. But that is not the history of the appearance of humans.

DAVID: And I think it is totally logical that God chose to evolve all life, ending with humans. I have never understood why you think it is illogical.

dhw: I don’t. It’s the rest of your theory that is illogical, as you keep admitting when you say you have no idea why your God chose the evolutionary method you impose on him […] and you therefore have to fall back on the claim that God’s logic is not ours! Why does God’s logic have to be different from ours if your theory is so logical?

DAVID: How can I know why God makes the choices He does make?

dhw: Wrong question. How can you know God’s choices? It is you who insist that he CHOSE or “decided” to take 3.X billion years before starting the process of designing the only thing he wanted to design.

My version of God chose to evolve humans over time as the history shows. Your impatient God wants to jump right to making humans. The problem between us is my version of God is not your version of God, and we will never meet in the middle.

DAVID: Adler warns His logic may not be like ours. You constantly humanize God.

dhw: Do please stop quoting Adler, as if somehow that gave some sort of logic to your “nonsense”. It is no defence of that “nonsense” to claim that my alternatives humanize God. Either your theory is nonsense or it isn’t. If you can’t explain it, I don't think you can expect me or anyone else to lend it credence on the grounds that maybe God’s logic is different from yours and ours!

I'll stick with Adler and his point that we cannot know God's logic. My theory is nonsense only for the God you invent. Let's finally stop.