David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, December 03, 2019, 10:58 (8 days ago) @ David Turell

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). (David’s bold)

DAVID: 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.

It is not “actual history” that your God had only one purpose, that he is in total charge, and that he decided not to pursue his one and only purpose for 3.X billion years, or that the specially designed pre-human bushes were “interim goals to establish the food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take”.

DAVID: 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.

I didn’t ask you to. It was you who asked me to do that.

DAVID: IF I chose to believe in God as the prime mover of all that happens, my thoughts are perfectly logical.

I have bolded the illogical combination of thoughts above, which you admit is only logical (or “not illogical") "if we do not apply human reasoning to the actual history.”

DAVID: I don't constantly spin theories about what God might or might not have thought to do.

No, you simply stick rigidly to your one illogical theory bolded above, about what he thought to do.

DAVID: All your suppositions are humanizing thoughts, because you can think only as a human…[dhw: can you think like a God?] 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.

I also think that if he exists he must have had a purpose for creating the universe and life. I’m not arguing here about underlying purposes, although I see no harm in theorizing about them. What bothers me is the illogicality of the theory bolded above.

DAVID: 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.

Only you accept the above theory which requires abandoning human reason. Of course the thoughts fit. Why must a ‘prime mover’ know and plan everything in advance? Why do you insist that he gave humans free will if you reject the idea of him designing something unpredictable? Why is an experimenting God “bumbling around”? Whether he set out to create something unpredictable or something he had never created before, his actions will still have been purposeful, and I would suggest that setting out to learn or create something new is an admirable purpose, not a sign of “bumbling”.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum