David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Friday, December 27, 2019, 18:58 (275 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: […] Your reasoning always focuses on one aspect of your theory and leaves out all those parts that render it illogical.

DAVID: And you always accept a God in charge, but then dispute the reasons why He did it.

dhw: Did what? If God exists, he must have had a purpose in creating life, but the history only shows us the result: 3.8 billion years of countless life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. extinct and extant, the latest of them being those that currently exist. We cannot know why or how he did that, but some theories are more logical than others.

It depends on the God one envisions. My God is highly purposeful and does not require experimentation as your humanized God seems to require.

DAVID: The bolds in your statement above are obviously contradictory: powerful God produced a fine-tuned universe which evolved beautifully, an Earth which evolved to the point that He could create life and then you WANT Him to suddenly experiment! Talk of totally illogical.

dhw: I do not "WANT" anything. I offer alternative explanations for the history of life as we know it. Here you seem to have forgotten that even the universe we know contains billions of stars and solar systems that have come and gone for approx. 13.8 billion years - long, long before our solar system (approx. 4.6 billion years old) even appeared on the scene. So far as we know, it is only ours that is “fine-tuned” enough to contain life. Wow, all that just for you and me? Talk about blinkered vision.

You are totally confused. Our universe is fine-tuned for life, not just this galaxy, which is specially designed by absorbing many small local galaxies to allow for enogh size to put the Earth in a very safe position.

dhw: There is nothing namby-pamby or humanly illogical about a creative mind working out scientifically how to create something that never existed before. Alternatively, (b) there is nothing namby-pamby or illogical about a creative mind setting certain processes in motion to see what they will produce (and perhaps even intervening as new ideas arise out of the results).

DAVID: Still describing a humanistic God who isn't sure how or what to produce by some mechanism.

dhw: That is no answer. Why shouldn’t your God be an experimenting scientist, and why is that illogical and namby-pamby? In any case, this is only one of several hypotheses that can logically explain the vast quantities of solar systems and life forms that preceded what you insist was the fulfilment of your God’s one and only purpose.

Again fully humanizing. The Milky Way took time to be properly formed. I view God as knowing exactly what He was doing. Your imagined God's personality is weird.

Dhw: You asked me which cells would have designed the Cambrian creatures, and I have given you the answer you gave me: if your God gave cells the autonomous intelligence to design the Cambrian creatures, they would be the same cells you believe your God preprogrammed or dabbled in order to design them.

DAVID: The Cambrian required a powerful clear-thinking designing mind, not cell committees. It is easier to do the design than teach the cells how to design.

dhw: So do you think your God either preprogrammed or personally taught every inventor how to create every machine, book, strategy that was ever devised? No, you firmly believe that he gave humans the autonomous intelligence to do their own designing. And yet you do not accept the POSSIBILITY that he might have given cells/cell communities sufficient autonomous intelligence to control and change their own bodies in accordance with the needs or opportunities provided by an ever changing environment.

Sure He could, with guidelines, but that is the long way around. My God is much more direct and purposeful than your mamby-pamby humanized God. The overriding problem is how one imagines God's personality to be..

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum