David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 03, 2019, 01:40 (8 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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: Your thinking and mine is totally contaminated by religious teaching. God is another name for the designer. This is the ID approach. The designer must be able to create evolution with all its complex intricate forms. And the evident design proves how brilliant he is. This is why Dawkins says don't fall for the trap of accepting a designer behind the design. I've accepted and try to ignore my childhood teachings. This means I have to accept evolution as the designer's work. That is my human reasoning.

dhw: Neither your theory nor my alternative theistic theories have anything to do with religious teaching, and once more you are trying to evade the illogicalities of your own theory through generalizations which are perfectly reasonable: if God exists, yes he is a brilliant designer, and yes he chose evolution, which is his work. What is not reasonable is the list of combined bolded theories above, which according to you is not illogical so long as you do not try to apply human reasoning to the actual history (which means the bush of life, with H.sapiens the latest arrival).

The bold agrees with me. Our difference is Adler's theory that humans were God's purpose. I think my reasoning about the necessity of the bush before human is absolutely logical. It is the actual history. I have applied human reasoning to my conclusions about God'choices, but I refuse to try and guess or ascertain His reason for creating us. That approach has nothing to do with illogicality of the simple conclusion God chose to evolve humans as his final goal.


DAVID: You are hung up in your thinking because you have admitted you can see the design, but reject the possibility of a designer. That is our only difference.

dhw: Our difference here is in your attempt to kid yourself and us that you know your God’s purpose and methodology, as summarized above in bold.

IF I chose to believe in God as the prime mover of all that happens, my thoughts are perfectly logical. I don't constantly spin theories about what God might or might not have thought to do. All your suppositions are humanizing thoughts, because you can think only as a human and God might well have same reasoning as we but also has purposes we may not understand. For example, I think He is very strongly purposeful in His actions, but I don't attempt to find His underlying purposes that may well exist. Note the ideas you conjure up I've put in bold above. He has to experiment to get to us, or He thought of us late on. Fine, you can picture him as bumbling around, not sure of Himself. As a 'prime mover' none of the thoughts fit. Our concepts of God will always be far apart. But only I accept Him.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum