David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, October 09, 2019, 12:02 (1870 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I do not reject your argument that design/complexity provides evidence for the existence of God, which embraces Adler’s example of the human mind. But you have repeatedly admitted that Adler does NOT argue that H. sapiens was your always-in-total-control God’s intent from the beginning, that for some unknown reason he decided not to fulfil that intent for 3.X billion years and therefore had to preprogramme or dabble every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history as interim goals in order to cover the time before starting on the fulfilment of his one and only goal. And I doubt very much that Adler would tell us this theory is perfectly logical provided we do not try to apply human logic, and that any alternative to this theory must be wrong because it entails “humanizing” God, although God “very well could think like us”. (dhw’s bold)
0
DAVID: [Adler] is part of my reasoning that God is in charge. He recognizes our vast difference when you constantly try to smudge it.

I don’t smudge the vast difference (see the “consciousness” thread), and I don’t see the point in your harping on about Adler and totally ignoring the above list of incongruities which he never discusses.

DAVID: […] I don't question God's choices of mechanism, which is why I have 'no idea'. You can propose all you wish about God, while having no way of proving you might be even slightly correct. With the belief God is in charge of creation History tells us exactly what He did.

dhw: History tells us the result – the great bush of life. Once again: it does not tell us one single aspect of the theory bolded above, and “you can propose all you wish about God, while having no way of proving you might be even slightly correct.” The very fact that your proposal requires a suspension of all human logic does not even endow it with any credibility for me as a human!

DAVID: Of course history tells us what God produced. It doesn't give us His reasons, which we must guess at. It is your logic that is absent. The bold above produced some of my guesses at which you laugh. Shouldn't I laugh at yours?

The little face is not laughing. You complain that my different proposals, all of which you acknowledge to be logical if we apply human reasoning, can’t be proved, and I am pointing out that your guess, which requires abandoning human reasoning, can’t be proved either.