David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell , Saturday, November 30, 2019, 21:20 (1818 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: […] For me God runs things, and chose to evolve us. Why go further?

dhw: 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.”(dhw’s bold)

DAVID: The answer is simple. I have totally accepted Adler's argument that we were specially designed as God's purpose. I also agree with the IDer's that God runs evolution and designs everything. Thus my theory fits my decisions. I understand that the 'delay' issue between us is your humanizing of God. God is allowed to delay as long as He wants. He is in charge.

dhw: I know what you have “accepted” and “agreed”, ... But your decisions/theory include a delay which you yourself find inexplicable, and so you tell us that we mustn’t apply human logic to the delay which you have created with your theory.

DAVID: I did not create a delay. The time taken is what God chose to do.[/i]

dhw: Of course you created a delay. You argued that his one and only purpose was to create humans, but he decided (your word, not mine) not to fulfil this sole purpose for 3.X billion years. If he had had a different purpose or purposes, or had not been in total charge, the 3.X billion years would not have been a delay!

DAVID: We know it happened. Goals can always be delayed if there is good reason. Don't you realize if God chose to create human through a process of evolution it required the time it took. You are totally irrational in your analysis. A purpose does not ever require immediacy, but that is what you are demanding.

dhw: But you can’t find one! I have offered you two good theistic reasons that allow for your goal and your methodology: he didn’t know how to create an organism with all our god-like powers, and so he kept experimenting. Or life was one gigantic experiment, and humans only came into his mind late on in the process.

Pure humanizing again. God knows exactly what He is doing.

dhw: Yet again: you wrote that your theory is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.” You actually keep telling me to stop thinking like a human being (see below) and although you acknowledge that your God “very well could think like us”, you refuse to accept the possibility that he does. If you believe I have misinterpreted the bold, please tell us exactly what you meant.

DAVID: […] I'm sure God thinks as logically as we do, but I cannot know his actual thinking. From what we know I can perceive His purposes, but cannot question His results shown in His works.

dhw: You can guess at his purpose (you only allow for one), and neither of us is questioning the results (the bush of all species, including humans as the latest). But you cannot understand what you interpret as his method (summarized above in bold) and reject possible and logical explanations on the grounds that although he may very well think like us, you know he doesn’t. And so you admit that your theory remains inapplicable to the actual history. […]

Actual history tells me What God decided to do, because He is in charge of the history of evolution. You are using your human logic to humanize your view of God.

DAVID: Tell me why you think God made humans?

dhw: I asked you the same question some time ago. If he exists, and if he specially designed humans, I could accept your own “humanized” proposals: to admire his works, to have a relationship with him. I would add the equally “humanized” proposal that the whole of life is a spectacle to satisfy his desire to create, thereby filling what would otherwise be an endless and eternal void, and the most fascinating form of creation would be a being that would mirror himself in its ability to think and feel as he does. Of course This has nothing to do with the illogicality of your theory.

All of those 'purposes' are humanizing, just as you admit my polite responses to your requests from me are humanized reasons. All you and I have done is guess, which does not advance our understanding of His reason and purpose. We both know any of our answers are colored by religious ideas from the past, which I staunchly try to avoid..