David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 14, 2020, 15:36 (3 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID (from the Shapiro thread): I don't try to interpret God's thoughts about His purposes. […] As for God's purposes, you have described a shortened process. One does not arrive at a purpose without aforethoughts.

dhw: First you tell us that you do not try to interpret God’s thoughts about his purposes, and then you inform us that “one” does not arrive at a purpose without aforethoughts! What shortened process have I described? I keep offering you a variety of aforethoughts and purposes, all of which you agree are logical, but still you cling to your own interpretation of his aforethoughts and purpose (plus one interim purpose), which you have told us is logical so long as you do not apply it to the actual history.

Same old distortion. The history is exactly what I use to see God's choice of method of evolution.

dhw: For the umpteenth time, history does not tell us any of the above! They are all your interpretation of history and of your God’s goal, abilities and method.

I don't interpret God's abilities. They are unknown.

Dhw: And why can’t you conceive of your God having thoughts and feelings in common with us?

DAVID: Once again your human view of God gets in the way of clear thinking about God.

dhw: Please reread the question and then answer it. Since your version of God entails a theory you cannot logically explain, and since you acknowledge that my alternatives are logical, I suggest that your blinkered vision of his purpose, abilities and method gets in the way of clear thinking about God.

I don't try to explain God or His decisions for purpose and method.

DAVID: Many of us are quite logical about God.

dhw: But that does not mean your personal theory of evolution is logical, as you have acknowledged in your admirably frank statement that your theory is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.” I quite understand why you are so desperate to ignore or disown unequivocal statements like this and God “very well could think like us”, but they represent lucid thinking on your part, and support my objections to your theory as clearly as anything I can ever write.

DAVID: All taken out of the context at the time.

dhw: Please explain what you really meant by the above quotes if you did not mean that your theory could not logically be applied to the actual history, and if you did not mean that God might well think like us.

Logical use of history forms my theory. God uses logic as we do.

DAVID: Let's start over and accept what I write currently and have written for the last several weeks. Those are my true current thoughts. We can only guess at God's humanness. Surely His logic is like ours.

dhw: We can only guess at his existence, his nature, his purpose, his abilities and his method. You still cannot find a logical explanation for what you believe to have been his delaying method (so the quotes still stand), you cannot know to what extent he thinks or does not think like us (so the quote still stands), and what you have written currently is that you do not think we should try to read God’s thoughts, although your theory is your illogical attempt to read God’s thoughts.

I use a method as suggested by Adler. You take a fully human approach, assuming much about God that can only be guessed at. Adler and I do not guess. Why can't God choose to delay? Because you are using human logic about God's intentions and reasoning, falling into a trap Adler warns about. I follow Adler, you use Shapiro. We both have a right to do that .

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum