David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell , Wednesday, December 04, 2019, 01:30 (1815 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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”.

If God is the prime mover as I believe, He creates history. You view of my thoughts is again an entire distortion of what I have said and believe in a combination of thoughts, which I am not going to repeat again.

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

dhw: 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.”

Again distortion. My reasoning is quite cl ear to me.

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

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

And you invent all sorts of humanized theories about God's possible thoughts, while I chose to look at His works, not why He might have decided to do what it is obvious He did.

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.

dhw: 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.

Only you see it as illogical, but your distortions constantly twist the meanings of my previous statements.

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.

dhw: Only you accept the above theory which requires abandoning human reason.

Adler's thought about the appearance of humans is finely reasoned.

dhw: 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?

I have never said He desired the humans to be 'predictable'. He gave us consciousness which allows free will. Where did you get the idea that I reject unpredictability in that one design by God?

dhw: 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”.

The bold is an exact example of your concept of a very human God. You can analyze all you like as it is your privilege, But I will analyze events and the appearance of our consciousness definitely tells med we are/were God's prime goal.