David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, December 01, 2019, 08:49 (1817 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Goals can always be delayed if there is good reason. […]

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.

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

How do you know what God knows? Your God “very well could think like us”, and yet you “know” that he already knows how to create H. sapiens, you “know” his one aim is to create H, sapiens, you “know” he has “good reason” to delay creating H. sapiens – though you have no idea what that reason might be – and so you “know” he has to create billions of non-human lifeforms, econiches, lifestyles, strategies, econiches before he starts creating the only thing he wants to create! All of this is pure guesswork, and you admit that it defies human reasoning.

DAVID: 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.

Actual history tells you that there has been a hugely diversified bush of life, and H. sapiens is the last species so far. The rest of your theory defies human logic, and although you are sure that “God thinks as logically as we do”, you can’t understand his logic.

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.

DAVID: 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.

You asked me to tell you why I thought God made humans, and now you complain that I have given you an answer! Of course it’s all a guess, as is the whole of your theory, the illogicality of which you acknowledge but “staunchly try to avoid”.