David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, January 16, 2020, 11:58 (285 days ago) @ David Turell

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?

DAVID: 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.

I am not saying you know the full spectrum. You claim to know that he is in full control of evolution and is able to choose any way he wants in order to design H. sapiens. That is an interpretation of his abilities in relation to evolution, not a statement that you know absolutely everything he can do. Good try.

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”?

DAVID: 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.

We cannot “know” anything about God, including his existence, so why do you reject the possibility that he may have thoughts and feelings in common with us, although “he very well could think like us”? You refuse to answer. How can your theory be said to support the contention that he “reasons logically as we do” when we both agree that human reasoning cannot apply that theory to the actual history? I understand your predicament, but these two quotes encapsulate the whole argument that I keep putting to you. The theory is illogical, and the “humanizing” argument carries no weight, because we have no idea whether your God has human attributes or not.

DAVID: I use a method as suggested by Adler. […]

dhw: 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.)

DAVID: 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 God is exactly human, something Adler warns against.

Adler is important to you, but the purpose of our discussions is not to say how much you love Adler and Adler loves you. Please stick to the arguments.

DAVID: We can make intelligent guesses, no more. I'm sorry I can't explain my theories to your humanizing satisfaction.

Yes, all the theories are guesses. You cannot explain the logic behind your theory of evolution because you know it is not logical by human standards of reasoning. It is no defence to say that any other explanation “humanizes” God since (a) we cannot know whether God has human-type thoughts, and (b) we have no reason to suppose that God’s logic must be incomprehensible to us humans. It’s only your theory that resists human reasoning when applied to the actual history. So maybe your theory is wrong, regardless of your objections to alternative theories.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum