David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, November 28, 2019, 12:11 (308 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 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.

dhw: Your extremely humanized analogy continues to illustrate the illogicality of your evolutionary theory. Of course the plays are not related to each other – just as 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms, econiches etc. are not related to H. sapiens. So if the master playwright’s one purpose was to write Hamlet, why did he write the other unrelated plays? Maybe Hamlet was not his one and only purpose, maybe they were experiments, or maybe the idea for Hamlet only came late on in his career. But no, you reject all such explanations because the master playwright doesn’t experiment and knows what he wants and how to get it, right from the beginning. So why did the playwright write all these other unrelated plays, and why did God design all these unrelated non-humans? Your answer: the theory makes sense so long as we do not apply human logic to the actual history.

DAVID: Human thoughts attempting to reason about God's thoughts remain reasonable guesses. No proof of anything.

None of the theories, theistic or atheistic, provide proof of anything. Thank you for again acknowledging the reasonableness of the above theories, in stark contrast to your own, which according to you is not illogical only “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.” I understand why you persistently ignore your own judgement, but I’m afraid it won’t go away.

DAVID: Each of us reach our own conclusions, which for some become faith. For me God runs things, and chose to evolve us. Why go further?

What a good question. If he exists, he also chose to evolve every other organism that ever lived, so why on earth did you bother to go so far as to claim that humans were his one and only purpose, that he is in total charge, that he specially designed every other non-human species (as opposed to designing a mechanism enabling them to evolve themselves), and that he did so only because he had decided for some inexplicable reason to delay fulfilling his one and only purpose and therefore had to design the rest to “cover the time”? All of these are “further” to the claim that God “runs things, and chose to evolve us.”

DAVID: I've fully covered my reasoning and it is reasonable as it uses actual history.

According to you, the above theory is only reasonable if it is NOT applied to the actual history.

DAVID: I've bolded my complaint about your issue of why wait. What is your point. I see no answer.

My point is that you reject all the reasonable alternatives to your own theory, although you acknowledge that the latter is unreasonable by human standards.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum