David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, December 05, 2019, 10:34 (44 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your main complaint is evolution takes time. That is a given. Of course He spent the time. Your objection is incomprehensible to me.

Only an idiot would complain about evolution taking time! My complaint, as you very well know, is that you say your always-in-control God only had one purpose (us), but he decided for no reason you can think of to spend 3.X billion years NOT fulfilling his one and only purpose but specially designing billions of non-human life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc.

DAVID: Total distortion. I have perfect ideas as to why God evolved humans in the time it took.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: I don't have 'perfect ideas', your twisted misinterpretation.

What do you mean by “I have perfect ideas” (bolded) if you now say “I don’t have ‘perfect ideas’”?

DAVID: Your ‘no idea’ jibe is a twisted version of my intention not to question God’s thinking or his choice. You have every right to question a god […] you do not believe in from your humanistic view.

dhw: 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.[…]

DAVID: You have listed current theories, none of which can be proven. Everyone, including you, have a right to a specific view of God. No vote can be taken.

I have pointed out that I am not questioning God’s choices, purposes and methods, as you constantly complain, but am questioning your theory about them. None of the theories can be proven, and everyone has a right to his own, but that does not mean that when I challenge yours, I am challenging God.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Once again history tells us what God did, not his reasoning, which can be found only as theories, if one tries.

And you have agreed that your own theory requires the abandonment of 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?

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Weird reasoning. Immaterial consciousness makes us unpredictable. You are comparing it to material evolution as an equal comparison to development of the immaterial. Not really logical.

I am not making any comparisons whatsoever. You have objected to the idea that your God might create an evolutionary process that would produce unpredictable results (what I have called the higgledy-piggledy bush of life). I have given you an example of your God creating something unpredictable (human free will), which shows that he is not averse to producing something unpredictable.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum