David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, November 15, 2019, 11:18 (27 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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 have been absolutely clear. I do not try to judge God's choices of method. He chose to evolve life on Earth and that was His choice. That can not be debated. What we have debated is the final issue of that evolution which is the importance of the arrival of humans. To Adler and I the arrival of our degree of consciousness is so unusual a result, it demands to be considered as God's work and goal. You chose not to accept that conclusion. That is your prerogative. We cannot remove the divide in our discussion. We simply differ.

As always, you select sections of your belief which in themselves are not illogical, and you leave out the other sections. Yes, it is logical to regard humans as exceptional and to argue that such complexity may be used as evidence for a designer. Since humans are the last species so far, it is not illogical to argue that we might have been the designer’s goal. But what, by your own admission, is not logical is the argument that humans were your God’s one and only goal, he is always in total charge, but for reasons you cannot fathom he decided not to fulfil his one and only goal for 3.X billion years and therefore “had to” specially design billions of other life forms, lifestyles, strategies etc. to cover the time he had decided to take. This is the combination of beliefs which, in your words, is not illogical "if we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history.” Why do you refuse to explain what other meaning your words could possibly have? I suggest once more that you should agree with yourself, so that we can move on.

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

dhw: 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!

DAVID: I have not quit on this point of difference as you can see. I've simply analyzed our difference. As I see it, if you accepted Adler's point, it would make your persistent Agnosticism very untenable. What would also make it untenable would be if you really understood the complexity of living biochemistry as James Tour does. I truly feel the proof, as best as it can be established, lies in an understanding of the physics and biochemistry of living beings, and the inordinate complexity. It absolutely requires a designing mind.

And that, as you know perfectly well, is not the subject of our disagreement, which I have now repeated above for the umpteenth time.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum