David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, January 15, 2020, 16:13 (2 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 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.

DAVID: Same old distortion. The history is exactly what I use to see God's choice of method of evolution. –[…] I don't interpret God's abilities. They are unknown.

The whole bush is the history, and you cannot explain why he would choose a method which means he has to fill in time by designing 3.X billion years’ worth of bush before fulfilling his only purpose. Re abilities, a quote from a couple of days ago: “Your humanized thinking about God firmly excludes that God can create us any way He wants!” Over and over again you tell us that he is in total charge/control. If he can choose any way he wants and is in total control, how can you say you don’t interpret his abilities?

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

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

You merely state your interpretation of them as if this was a known fact. Meanwhile, once again: “why can’t you conceive of your God having thoughts and feelings in common with us?” You said I had taken your quotes out of context. So once again: what did you really mean when you said your theory is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”, and God “very well could think like us”?

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.

DAVID: 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.

I assume nothing about God - I offer different hypotheses, whereas you allow only for one: you guess that if God exists he can do whatever he wants when he wants, he is in total control, he had only one purpose in creating life (to design us), he designed everything else to fill in time because he had decided not to design us for 3.X billion years…can’t you see that these are all guesses? You use human logic to underpin your belief in a designer God, you claim that God’s logic is like ours, but since you can’t explain your own theory, we mustn’t use human logic, especially if we come up with a different theory which illustrates that God’s logic really could be like ours. Why are you so afraid that your God might in certain respects think and feel as we do, even though he is not human, and that his thoughts and feelings might have caused history to unfold as it has done? Who follows whom is irrelevant. Please stick to the arguments and defend your own without hiding behind Adler, who you have told us does NOT cover your own personal theory of evolution which is the issue in dispute. (To anticipate the usual digression, there is no dispute over the logic for the existence of a designer God or over the uniqueness of humans.)


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum