David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 23, 2019, 19:18 (18 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: As usual, you have left out all the bits of your theory that make it illogical. The missing bits are that your God is always in control, and for 3.X billion years he specially designed billions of non-human life forms as “interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take” before starting to “evolve humans over time” – although they were his one and only goal and you “have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”. These are the “positive thoughts” you impose on your God, exactly as I have reproduced them in my parentheses, and you admit that all these beliefs in combination are not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”, which can only mean that they ARE illogical if one tries to apply human reasoning to the actual history.

DAVID: Because you chop it up into bits and pieces it becomes illogical to you.

dhw: It is the combination of the bits and pieces which you agree is illogical when you try to apply it to the actual history.
[…]
DAVID: I don't ever try to apply human reason to what I see as God's works. He did what He did. […]

dhw: If he exists, of course he did what he did. And you apply human reason to the fact that humans are intellectually superior to other animals and therefore you believe we were his one and only purpose. Not illogical. The problem arises when you try to apply this reasoning to what your God actually did. And then you have no idea why he did it that way, but you […] attempt to blame me for pointing out the illogicality of what you yourself consider to be illogical by all human standards of logic.

DAVID: There again is your weird twist of my thoughts. I view nothing I think about God as illogical.

dhw: So why do you say that the above theory is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”?

I don't try 'reasoning' what God might have thought in making His choice to evolve human over the time we know it took. You are the one who tries to look into His thought process. The only true reasoning I have done is conclude, with Adler, humans were His goal.


DAVID: God did what He did. I don't question His choice of using an evolution method.

dhw: If he exists, nor do I, because I believe evolution happened – the whole higgledy-piggledy bush of it!

DAVID: Our only real dispute, as I view it, is that you do not accept Adler's view and mine that humans were a final goal.

dhw: Why do you again say “a” final goal? What other final goals do you envisage? In any case I have bolded my acceptance that the idea of humans being his one and only purpose is NOT illogical (hence the experimentation hypothesis), but it does not make sense when combined with the rest of your fixed beliefs concerning life’s history, as confirmed by your agreement that one cannot apply human reasoning to your theory as a whole.

Once again we cannot apply human reasoning to what God has done. My reasoning has lead me to accept God as the prime mover and humans were His goal, without delving into His reasoning. Of course there were intermediate goals like using the bush of life to set up necessary econiches. As I apply my reasoning to the process of evolution, I have concluded reasonably that God must be in charge. The designs in the biochemistry of life require the mind of a designer.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum