David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, January 20, 2020, 13:56 (255 days ago) @ David Turell

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

How does that negate the point that the theory is not logical if one applies human reasoning to the actual history?

You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn’t work.”
DAVID: I follow Adler who warns against this.

Same again: How does that negate the point that your God’s logic is such that your human reasoning cannot understand it when you apply it to the actual history?

“Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time?"
DAVID: I really don't even try to know why.

So when asked to find a logical link between the different parts of your theory, your reply is that you don’t even intend to look, but (next quote)

He [God] very well could think like us.”
DAVID: Logically as I've constantly said.

How can you know your God thinks logically if you don’t even try to find ANY logic that would link your theory to the actual history? And is that honestly what you meant by your statement? Did you really and truly not mean that he might have certain thoughts in common with us?

"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.
DAVID: 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.

You said he had DECIDED to take time to achieve his only purpose and you have no idea why. Don’t forget your belief that he is in total charge, and can achieve his purpose any way he wants. All of your quotes together suggest to me that since you refuse to look for a logical explanation of your interpretation of your God’s purpose, ability and method, and therefore cannot possibly find one, you “know darn well” (an expression you used of me earlier) that there isn’t one because something is wrong with your interpretation.

DAVID: 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”?

DAVID: Because the God I have faith in is primarily purposeful.

The above hypotheses are purposeful. The first indicates that, in your own words, he “clearly recognized the problems evolution presents and sets about to solve them as he goes forward”, which is not a bad description of how inventors achieve their goal through experimentation. The second has the purpose of seeing what will happen if…(another form of experimentation), and then building on those results to form new ideas. Why is that “doddery”?

DAVID: History [...] 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 [not] worth anything since it proves nothing.

We are both guessing, but if your criterion for worth is that guesses must prove something, the whole of this website and both of your books are worthless. I could hardly disagree more.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum