David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, January 21, 2020, 11:57 (254 days ago) @ David Turell

I produced a series of quotes from David to show his own awareness of the illogicality of his theory. I shan’t repeat them here, since his replies encapsulate all the contradictions. Here are the replies:

I never try to use reason about what God did other than accepting thinking humans are the prime goal. Therefore nothing 'illogical' can appear.

I cannot know His reasons for His purposes, at which you love to guess.

I assume all normal minds can think logically, and God must be the same.

You fail to understand I don't try [to find a logical explanation]!!! God did what He wished to do, period!

Nobody can know God’s purposes, if he exists. You do not “accept” that humans were the prime goal – you believe that particular theory. “God wished to do what he wished to do” does not mean that he wished to do what you say he wished to do. You have “reasoned” the following: all life forms etc. are so complex that they must have been designed; God designed them all; God’s prime goal was to produce H. sapiens; God knows what he wants, is always in control, and can produce what he wants any way he likes; God did not produce H. sapiens for thousands of millions of years; therefore God must have designed all those other life forms etc. as interim goals to cover the time he had decided to take before designing the only thing he wanted to design. Please pinpoint any “distortion” up to this point.

You have no idea why he would delay pursuing his “prime” goal, but he must have a logical reason because all normal minds can think logically. But you refuse to look for a logical reason because you can’t know his reasons. Well, you can’t “know” his reasons, you can’t “know” his purposes, you can’t “know” his capabilities, and you have no idea why he would fulfil your interpretation of his purpose using your interpretation of his method. And yet you constantly present your interpretations as facts, and then you say we should not question the logic of what you believe to be the facts. The “actual history” is confined to the bush of life, including humans. The rest is interpretation! Once again, then, it is YOUR logic that is incomprehensible, not God’s, and since that is the case, your interpretation may be wrong.

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.

dhw: 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: Your usual total humanized misinterpretation of a purposeful God.

Why “misinterpretation”, since you cannot “know” his purpose, abilities or methods but you assume that he has a normal, logical mind and these two explanations are logical.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum