David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, December 04, 2019, 12:37 (7 days ago) @ David Turell

Taken over from the “Mammalian", as it covers many points raised on this thread.

DAVID: Your complaint is just a denial that evolution happened under the control of God. My plain belief is God started life with bacteria and eventually evolved humans as He increased the complexity of living beings.

I am not denying that evolution happened, and if God exists I have no doubt that it would have happened the way he wanted it to happen. And yes it began with bacteria, complexified, and eventually led to humans. That is the extent of the history. The dispute is over your fixed belief that although he was in full control and had only one goal (us), he spent 3.X billion years controlling/designing every non-human innovation, lifestyle, strategy, econiche and natural wonder before fiddling his way itty-bitty to designing us, and you have no idea why but refuse to consider explanations such as experimentation or new ideas as evolution progressed (to fit in with your anthropocentrism), or him wanting to give evolution free rein, though with the option of dabbling.

DAVID: Total distortion. I have perfect ideas as to why God evolved humans in the time it took. that is history. Your 'no idea' jib is a twisted version of my intention not to question God's thinking or his choice. You have every right to question a god ( small 'g' intentional) you do not believe in from you humanistic view.

Your exact words were: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time.” Now suddenly you have perfect ideas. You have manufactured a theory, and your intention therefore seems to be not to question your INTERPRETATION of your God’s thinking and choice because you can’t explain it. I do not question a god, I question your INTERPRETATION of your God’s purpose and method. Process theologians believe in God and argue that he is always in a process of “becoming” (very different from your view that he is always in control and knows everything in advance), deists believe in God and argue that he initiated creation and then allowed it to run its own course, Hindus believe God manifests himself in different forms. You do not have a monopoly on God, and since your theory bolded above, by your own admission, is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”, I’m afraid my agnosticism does not provide you with any defence of its logic or with any grounds for rejecting alternative theories which you yourself find perfectly logical.
I will try to shorten the rest of the post, as it is very repetitive:

DAVID: If God is the prime mover as I believe, He creates history.

Yes, but your theory concerning his purpose and method is not history.

DAVID:… 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.

You wrote that your God “very well could think like us”, so why exclude theories that provide logical links between his works and his intentions?

DAVID: ….your distortions constantly twist the meanings of my previous statements.

This is a regular complaint. There is only one context here, which is your theory of evolution - which I have even reproduced in your own words - and all the comments I have reproduced can only relate to your theory. I do not know what other meanings could be derived from “I have no idea…”, and “if one does not apply human reasoning…”

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

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

Agreed. It is your coupling of his thoughts with the rest of the theory that defies human reason.

dhw: 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?

DAVID: 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?

You do NOT reject it! That is my point: if you agree that your God desires unpredictability in humans, why should he not desire unpredictability in the higgledy-piggledy bush of life by giving organisms the means to design their own innovations, lifestyles etc.? He is not opposed to creating unpredictability.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum