David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, December 07, 2019, 10:40 (1811 days ago) @ David Turell

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

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

DAVID: The actual full quote: DAVID: "Total distortion. I have perfect ideas as to why God evolved humans in the time it took. that is history". The history is a perfect background for knowing what God did as I view Him in charge.

dhw: We are not arguing about the history, but about what God did to produce the history (e.g. “preprogrammed or dabbled” versus “gave free rein”) and why (e.g. solely “in order to produce humans” – which engenders theories as to why he delayed, or alternatively that he had other purposes, e.g. to create an unpredictable bush). You have no idea why he would have delayed, so what is the subject of the perfect ideas you have but do not have?

DAVID: I directly believe God is the engineer of evolution and designed all species. I don't need to know why God delayed, because that is exactly what He did as his decision.

It is your interpretation of his purpose and method that has created the delay. If either of these was different from your fixed beliefs, the idea of a “delay” would disappear!

DAVID: Your problem is you cannot accept how I believe in God. Of course my patterns of belief are incomprehensible to you and illogical by your reasoning. I consider Him as much more than just humanly thinking as we do. You are approaching God with your human logic. I've said all along it is your problem you create for yourself, certainly not mine.

I cannot accept your theory of God’s combined purpose and method (not “how you believe in God”), and the fact that you have to abandon human logic in order to believe it is unlikely to win you many human supporters!

dhw: Please explain what you meant when you said that your THEORY about your God’s choice of method (please don’t pretend you know that your choice was his choice) was not illogical “if one does apply human reasoning to the actual history”.

DAVID: Please reread the above statement of mine.

I have, and it confirms that you reject my human logic, and you cling to your theory on the grounds that your God doesn’t think like us humans, although elsewhere you have agreed that he “very well could think like us”.

DAVID:The process of producing physical forms should proceed into a specific direction if humans are to be evolved. I consider God as very purposeful. You don't. Consciousness with free will is only a human attribute. You are still at apples and oranges. [/i](dhw’s bold)

dhw:If humans were the purpose of evolution, you are absolutely right: the process should have proceeded in a specific direction. But for 3.X billion years, it did not! Hence the illogicality of your theory. I have no doubt that your God would be very purposeful. I am challenging your interpretation of his purpose precisely because of your first sentence. One of the alternative purposes I have proposed is the unpredictable spectacle of evolution given free rein. You did not think your God would want this (you like to ”humanize” him as a control freak), so I simply gave you an example of his willingness to give up control.[/i] (David’s bold)

DAVID: Totally illogicality. The definition of evolution is that it evolves OVER TIME.

Of course it does. But evolution is not confined to the evolution of humans! If your God had only one purpose (humans), in your own words, “the process…should proceed into a specific direction”, but for 3.X billion years it did not!

DAVID: I cannot accept your humanized God in the above bold. All your examples are human logic imaginations at work but that doesn't mean He develops His purposes as you might imagine. I view Him as entirely purposeful.

If he exists, of course he would be entirely purposeful. That does not mean his entire purpose was to create humans, and so he spent 3.X billion years not creating humans. You totally reject the possibility that he might have given up control over evolution (you “humanize” him as a control freak), and yet you believe he gave up control by creating free will. I only wish you would apply the same human logic to your theory of evolution as you do to the case for design as argued so cogently in your excellent books.