David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Friday, January 17, 2020, 15:20 (170 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Not the point. God is in charge of everything, not just evolution. Thus history shows us all his works, not the reasons He uses.


dhw: We know history shows us his works, if he exists! The point was your refusal to acknowledge that you interpret his abilities. Being in charge of everything (which I take to mean he has total control) and being able to choose any way he wants in order to create what he wants = an interpretation of his abilities.

I agree as to that point


dhw: 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: You have produced a direct contradiction. We don't know if God has any human attributes so why apply any as I said:

There is no contradiction. Since we do not know if God exists, or what his purposes were, or whether he has human characteristics or not, we can only produce theories. Either you dismiss every single theory because we don’t know the facts (which you do with every theory except your own), or we subject each theory to analysis by the only “reasoning” we have at our disposal, which is human. I don’t know if your designer theory is true, but I accept its logic. In your more tolerant moments, you have done the same with all my alternatives, and have even acknowledged the fact that your own theory is illogical by human standards. I don’t know why you can’t leave it at that.

Because you keep inserting the bolded above, which totally wrong about my methods. You have the ability to reproduce the original comments in context. Let's review them.


dhw: 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.

DAVID: The bolds are total distortions of my points of view. God's reasons for His choices cannot be known to us. Therefore guesses.

dhw: Once again: my different guesses can all be applied logically to the actual history, and by your own admission, your guess can’t. No distortion. The fact that we cannot “know” the truth does not mean that his logic must be incomprehensible to us!

That's the point. I do not try to analyze His reasons for His purposes, as sheer guesses. All we know is what He did.


DAVID: He is fully in charge. [dhw: But maybe he chose to allow evolution free rein, just as you believe he allowed humans free will]. All of reality is His works. [dhw: Yes, if he exists, but that does not mean he acted in accordance with your personal interpretation of the intentions, abilities and methods relating to his works.] God is not human, but logical as we are. [dhw: Which means his logic should be comprehensible to us, whereas there is no logical explanation for your guess as to his combined intentions, abilities and methods.]

As in my comments above, all you wish is our guesswork must be performed. We have already covered all of your guesswork, and I've agreed all logically possible, but still just a fog of possibilities. Agnosticism is at sea floating in possibilities.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum