David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, October 17, 2019, 12:53 (374 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: My objections to the incongruities of your theory, which demand the abandonment of human reason, have nothing whatsoever to do with religious writings about God. All we know about evolution is that it has gone on for approximately 3.8 billion years. That does not mean your God started off with the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens, decided to postpone his pet project for 3.X billion years and therefore had to specially design every branch of the non-human bush in order to cover the time he had decided to take before starting to fulfil his one and only purpose. I have offered you several alternatives to these incongruities, two of which actually allow for your anthropocentrism (experimentation, or the idea not occurring to him until late on). You reject them all, because we are supposed to accept that God doesn’t think like humans, although he very well may think like humans.

DAVID: You are so confused. We can assume God thinks like we do, but we cannot prove that, only look at His works, and work out possible conclusions.

Agreed. That is why I have offered you several alternative interpretations of his works based on DIFFERENT interpretations of his thinking. You have agreed that they are logical, but you have a fixed belief in your own conclusions, which you admit require the abandonment of human reason.

DAVID: The three religious books about God, per Karen Anderson, each show a different personality for God. She thinks the Quran is most adult in its approach, as it uses God's works to study Him. Since we have no other direct evidence, I agree with her. You agree our consciousness is very special. So are our physical capacities which are well beyond anything apes can do. I means to me we always were God's endpoint. I rely on expert opinions to reach my conclusions. What do you do?

Why are you now bringing religious books into the discussion? Of course I agree that if your hidden God exists, the only evidence we have is his works. As above, all my alternatives are interpretations based on his works. But you have yet to name a single expert who insists that your own conclusions as bolded above are likely to be correct, bearing in mind that they require the abandonment of human reason.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum