David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, November 14, 2019, 12:39 (27 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I logically see the necessity for design, but it is you who cannot find a designer.

As you know perfectly well, I accept the logic of design and a designer, but…as follows:
dhw: I constantly dispute your version of what he did and why he did it – a theory which leads to such confusion that you can only admit it is not illogical provided you do not apply human reasoning to the actual history.

DAVID: Nothing illogical if you accept history as what He did. The 'why' is what we debate.

dhw: If your God exists, what he did (the history) was produce the higgledy-piggledy bush. What is illogical is your version of “how” (designing billions of non-human innovations, lifestyles, natural wonders etc.), combined with your version of “why” (in order to cover the time which, despite being in total charge, he had inexplicably – you have “no idea” why – decided to take before beginning to design the only thing he wanted to design, H. sapiens). You are absolutely right to say that such a theory defies human logic.

DAVID: It is you who say my thoughts are illogical and defy human logic.

Once more, please explain what you meant when, in relation to your theory, you said it was “not illogical if we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history.”

DAVID: I simply accept what God did and you find that illogical. It is your problem. Not mine. I quit.

If God exists, what he did was somehow produce the bush of life. Perfectly logical. No need to quit if that is the extent of your theory. Just forget about the other bits (now bolded) which you have tagged on regarding his purpose and his method of achieving that purpose!


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum