Natural Wonders & Evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Wednesday, September 18, 2019, 19:17 (1676 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Our difference. God runs evolution. You have never accepted Adler's point of view as I have.

Dhw: You believe your God is in total charge, had one purpose, decided not to fulfil it for 3.X billion years, and therefore had to design every life form, lifestyle and natural wonder to cover the time until he started designing the only thing he wanted to design. You have told us that not even Adler subscribes to this theory.

DAVID: (later in this post) I have slightly extrapolated from Adler's major point.

dhw: You have told us that Adler uses the complexities of humans as his evidence that God exists. Although I remain agnostic, I have no quarrel with the logic of that argument, just as I have no quarrel with your own argument that the complexities of ALL life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders may be seen as evidence of your God’s existence. It is the illogicality of your “slight” extrapolation that is the issue between us.

DAVID: It is Adler's point that God created our brain and for him it proves God exists. Adler does not discuss earlier evolution, but that God is involved is implied. Adler's proof of God actually implies God maintains the universe.

dhw: Of course if God exists he is “involved” – but that does not mean his involvement is the illogical combination of purpose and method bolded above.

Does anyone else support your illogical view of my views? I'm sure religious believers would agree with me.

DAVID: I view God as totally in charge, not relinquishing to an uncontrolled mechanism, your invention.

dhw: I know your view. Now please explain why your view is “easier” for your God and is less “humanizing” than my alternative.

DAVID: Your theory allows God to give an inventive mechanism its own controls. I see God as in full control.

Yes, I know. So once more, please tell us why your theory is “easier” and less “humanizing” than mine.

DAVID: […] I want a responsible in total control. After all He is the boss who wants His results and gets them.

dhw: And that is probably the nub of the whole matter: you WANT a boss (how very human) who controls everything, and if your theory makes no sense even to you (you have “no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”) you turn a blind eye to perfectly logical proposals that the results he wants and gets have arisen from a different purpose or a different method.

DAVID: I reach my decisions about God from reviewing his works, our reality, and easily conclude God chose to evolve life and eventually reach our existence which includes for the first time our consciousness, which has no precedent in previous evolution.

dhw: Most of this applies to anyone who believes in God and believes in evolution. As usual you omit the illogical areas of your theory that you yourself cannot explain and which I have summarized in bold above. And STILL you refuse to say why your theory is “easier” for God and is less “humanizing” than mine.

I don't question God's choices of action and I think He made it easier for Himself by inventing a DNA which contains pre-programming and patterns of gene control, evidence of which is constantly found in 'convergence'. I have no idea of God ever thinks 'humanly', but you constantly try to explain Him in human logic. God is concealed and doesn't let us know how He thinks, so all we can do is look at what He has done.

DAVID: (under “Cambrian Explosion”): As usual I simply accept this was God's choice to use evolution and provide a huge bush of life for a food supply. God is not human and has his own reasons. Your complaint about Him is from human reasoning applied to Him.

dhw:My complaint is not about Him but about your implied claim that despite the fact that you too are human, you are privy to divine reasoning, and you happen to know that God reasons in a manner which leaves you with “no idea” why he would reason that way, and this entitles you to reject any alternative and logical theistic interpretation of evolution.

Your bolded comment is a constant misstatement of my declared position, that I cannot know His reasoning stated above.