David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell , Wednesday, January 15, 2020, 20:22 (1772 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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?

You use the quote to say I don't interpret His abilities. I didn't. I've simply said God is in total control, which does not imply the full spectrum of his possible abilities is known to me. He may not have some. Good try, but very off base.

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.

dhw: 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”?

We cannot know God's emotions, if any. You continue the distortions. I use the history to logically ascertain God's goals, not His reasons for his purposes. And finally God reasons logically as we do. We do not differ, except as you distort.

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.

dhw: 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.)

But Adler is important. He taught me how to realistically think about God and His 'personality". My theory is the result of my interpretation of Adler and of God's actions. A fully non-issue is whether Adler would approve of my theories, but He would certainly approve of my methods, as they are exactly his. Your view of Go is exactly human, something Adler warns against.

On the other hand I have explained my reasoning behind my theory, in that I have described what I do not do in thinking about God. Once again, God is as logical as we are. We can not ever know the reason behind his choices of action, either the methods or the purposes. We can make intelligent guesses, no more. I'm sorry I can't explain my theories to your humanizing satisfaction.