David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell , Tuesday, November 26, 2019, 15:58 (1822 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: We all understand that balanced econiches are necessary for the survival of organisms. The question is why 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human econiches were necessary for him to fulfil his one and only purpose etc. etc. Yes, the current bush of life is in full view, but according to you, the preceding non-human bush of 3.X billion years is not an illogical result of God’s pursuit of his one and only purpose so long as we do not try to find a logical reason for it.

DAVID: Don't you make choices that take time? Your plays and books take lots of time before they appear, played and read. All I've said, it is my belief God chose to evolve humans and took the time to do it that history shows. Why are you so hung up on a delay. Is your version of God supposed to be so impatient, He shouldn't have waited. I interpret you as demanding that God get to humans immediately if not sooner. Does this mean no one but humans are on Earth? How would that work? Talk about illogicality.

dhw: It is perfectly logical to argue that just like us humans, your God would have needed time to fulfil his purpose, which according to you was to create humans and all the conditions that would enable humans to exist. Thank you for “humanizing” him in this way. But no, I am not saying he shouldn’t have waited. I am saying that if he had one purpose and was fully in charge, he WOULDN’T have waited, as you have neatly illustrated by your analogy below.

You are describing a purpose, that so nagged Him, it was unreasonable to wait. Talk about humanizing! He had every right to take the time He took if He made the choice to evolve us, which history tells us He did.

DAVID: Sadly, only your reasoning. You do not understand a belief in God. It accepts the history of what He has done.

dhw: I have no problem understanding a belief in God or acceptance of the history (the bush of life), but I can find no logic in a theory which you yourself agree is illogical by human standards if we try to apply it to the history. And I cannot understand why, even though you acknowledge that different alternative theories do fit in logically with the history, these must be ignored because we must accept your illogical interpretation of your God’s thoughts and actions.

DAVID: The bolds are total distortions of my logical thoughts. Do your plays pop into print instantaneously? God prepared the Earth and the bush of life in preparation for our arrival.

dhw: If my sole purpose is to write Hamlet, why would I write A Midsummer Night’s Dream plus the rest of the canon? Yes, Hamlet takes time, and I may need to do some research and preparatory work and to fiddle around with my text before I’m satisfied with it, but I am not going to write lots of other plays just to fill in the time until I write the only play I want to write. Thank you for this clear analogy. And still you refuse to tell us why you regard your theory as logical, although it is only logical if you do not apply your human reason to the actual history.

See above. You are describing an extremely humanized God. Your plays are solo events not related to each other. One play did not evolve from others. They only relate through your brain.