David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, January 18, 2020, 11:56 (254 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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.

DAVID: 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.

You made the remarks, so why don’t you review them in context and tell us what else they can possibly mean?

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!

DAVID: 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.

Yes, all we know is what he did (if he exists), and all theories as to why he did it (i.e. his purpose or reason) are “sheer guesses”. The distinction between purpose and reason is silly. Purpose is the reason for doing something. Do I really have to repeat your version of purpose and reason? Here goes, then: sole purpose, to design H. sapiens (you refuse to discuss any purpose or reason for this). Ability: to do it any way he wants. Method: to design 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms, econiches, natural wonders, strategies etc. before starting to design umpteen different forms of pre-human and human. The REASON or PURPOSE for this: to fill in the time which inexplicably he decided to take before fulfilling his only purpose (H. sapiens).

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.]

DAVID: 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.

I don’t “wish” anything. I am trying to understand the mysteries of life, and I see different possible explanations. For some reason, you seem to think that this makes your own illogical theory more believable than any of those which you accept as being logical!

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum