David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 19, 2020, 21:45 (254 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: i can't hunt for context as you have the abilities given by Neil and I don't.

dhw: I suggest you tell us what context would change the meaning of the following:

Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.”

My reasoning is God is in charge and I simply accept His works as what He decided to do.

You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn’t work.

I follow Adler who warns against this.

Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time?"

I really don't even try to know why.

He [God] very well could think like us.”

Logically as I've constantly said.

"All the life forms etc. were “interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.”

I've said God knew the food need and that it would take time. Your interpretations of my thoughts are really stretched and quite weird

DAVID: Again your weird approach. Proper thinking is as follows: for some unknown reasons (which can only be guessed at) God wants to produce humans. Again (for some unknown reasons) He chooses to evolve them over time.

dhw: Please don’t forget that according to you, he has the ability to fulfil his purpose any way he chooses. It is therefore illogical that he should have one purpose only, have the ability to fulfil that purpose, but chooses not to do so and therefore “has to” design the rest (“has to” was another quote, but I didn’t keep it).

Again, you illogically refuse to allow God the right to choose His method, but not tell us why. Your argument about Him is at the human level. God never follows your reasoning.

DAVID: Since He is in charge, this description of His activities is obviously quite logical. Your humanizing approach describes Him as unreasonably doddering around.

dhw: On the contrary, I offer two hypotheses allowing for your single goal: either he had to experiment, (or as you put it so neatly, solve problems as he went forward), or humans were a late entry into his thoughts. Why do you consider either of these to be “doddering”?

Because the God I have faith in is primarily purposeful


DAVID: It is your humanized ideas about God that creates your problem, which you then try unreasonably to place on me, as you have no reasonable idea as to how to think about God without falling into traps. Adler is quite clear.

dhw: Well, good for Adler because your theory brings together three factors which are anything but clear since you can’t explain why, if his sole purpose was humans, he chose not to fulfil his sole purpose for 3.X billion years even though he had the ability to do so.

That is exactly our difference. History says that is precisely what happened, but doesn't explain God's reasons for His choices of action. And I can only guess at the reasons, something you enjoy doing for the sake of doing it, but n o worth anything since it proves nothing.

dhw: But although that is the subject under discussion, you keep telling us Adler doesn't deal with it, so let's leave Adler out of it, shall we?

Why should I leave Adler out? He has taught me how to think about God in a logical and reasonable fashion. Should I ask you to forget Shapiro, your favorite theorist.?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum