Natural Wonders & Evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, September 23, 2019, 11:45 (79 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Why is wanting total control not “humanizing”, and wanting only partial control “humanizing”?

DAVID: Because you are using humanized reasoning to question God's works and his reasoning behind the creation.

I am not questioning your God’s “works” but I am questioning your interpretation of his reasoning. I believe you are as human as I am, so do please tell me in your own human way why wanting total control is not “humanizing” but wanting only partial control is “humanizing”. If you can’t, then please say so, and we can move on.

dhw: Of course he has a purposeful goal, though you prefer not to discuss it, because if you do, you will find yourself agreeing with me! I have asked you what you think was his purpose in specially designing us. Your answers so far have been to have us admire his work and to have a relationship with us, and you have also said he watches us and the rest of his creations with interest (all nice and human).

DAVID: My guesses are responses to your probing for God's reasons, but I view them as pure guesses, with no real substance.

dhw: So what, if it is NOT a pure guess with no real substance, is your totally illogical guess that your all-purposeful God wanted total control, and therefore had to design billions of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders in order to fill in the time he had decided to take before designing the only thing he wanted to design?

DAVID: I don't guess. I simply accept what God chose to do as demonstrated in the history of events. And later: ….nothing you suggest can be proven, so it is all woolly guesswork. Accept history as God's work. I do.

dhw: We agree on the history of events: there is a universe, there is Planet Earth, there is life, and life began with single cells and evolved into multicellular organisms, of which we are the latest and – with our special degree of consciousness – the most complex. If God exists, it was all his doing. The comment to which you have replied, now bolded, is the area of your woolly guesswork with no real substance.

DAVID: You forget, with faith, we accept God's work as God's work. We can only guess at His reasoning. You are perfectly describing my God and find it irrational, which is just your problem and why you are an agnostic.

YOU find it irrational, because you have no idea why your God would choose such a method to achieve the purpose you impose on him! This has nothing to do with my agnosticism, since the rational alternatives I offer are all theistic!

DAVID (under “feedback loops”): I find nothing illogical in my theories. Pretending that I do is silly. It does not advance our discussion. (dhw’s bold)

I have also bolded your theory above, and you say to me: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time.” In that case, you cannot possibly find it logical. Indeed, you even go so far as to say that God’s logic must be different from human logic!

DAVID: Same tired mantra: I don't try to guess at God's reasoning. And I do fully feel His choice was logical and reasonable for Him. As you humanize god, you don't.

Same tired mantra. Nothing to do with humanizing God. YOU cannot understand his logic (“have no idea”), so once more, how can you possibly claim that you find nothing illogical in your theories, and how do you know that your God does not think in a way that would be logical and reasonable to us humans? This is indeed a tired mantra because so far you have never answered either question.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum