David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, October 12, 2019, 12:24 (355 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You are calling Adler a poor philosopher.

dhw: I am not calling Adler anything. I have no quarrel with the argument that human consciousness is so complex that it can be used as evidence for God’s existence. You are simply trying to divert attention away from the list of bolded incongruities (see yesterday's post) that make YOUR theory (nothing to do with Adler, who never discusses it) so illogical.

DAVID: You agree Adler's approach is logical. Thanks. Your incongruities are your illogicality, not mine.

You force me to repeat the list of your incongruities:
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”.

DAVID: I believe God created/ran evolution and the history exposes what He did, not why.

dhw: […] You also insist on telling us why he created what he did, his one and only purpose having been to create H. sapiens, although for reasons unknown he decided to spend 3.X billion years creating the non-human evolutionary bush instead. […]

DAVID: I reject your illogical approach (in bold above) to God, because I simply say God created everything and history therefore tells the story.

dhw: The bold above is YOUR illogical approach! History is the bush: the purpose for creating the bush is the reason “why”!

DAVID: Totally twisted: God wanted humans and used the bush to create them. He runs everything. His choice of method cannot be questioned, in my theology.

No twisting! The bush is the history, “God wanted humans” is your interpretation of the purpose (reason why), and you have no idea why, if he runs everything, he decided not to create what he wanted, but “had to” (your words) create the non-human bush – not in order to create humans, but in order to cover the time until he did create humans!

dhw: I therefore challenge your assumption that he only had one purpose, but I offer alternative explanations for the evolutionary bush, all of which you reject because although they are perfectly logical, you have a fixed belief that your God doesn’t think like us, even though he “very well could think like us”!

DAVID: The key to my approach is Adler and our specialness, and you've agreed that is a good argument for God.

But it is no argument at all for the incongruities I have listed. Adler’s “key” is to the existence of a designer God, not to the incongruous theory bolded above.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum