David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 25, 2020, 19:59 (245 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID:[...] God can do what He wants any way He wants.

dhw: If he exists, then I agree. That is why it is so illogical, if he can fulfil his purpose any way he wants, to make him have only one purpose and then to make him decide not to fulfil his purpose but instead to pursue “interim goals”.

DAVID: But you've just admitted He has the right to do it that way. He does what He wants when He wants. Just accept it.

dhw: I do. What I do not accept is that you have confined him to the one way which makes no sense, whereas if I believed in a God that had total control and could do what he wants when he wants, he would do exactly that! Hence he would have wanted the whole bush, with all its comings and goings. Not: he wanted H. sapiens but decided to design the great bush instead as an interim goal just to keep life going until he did what he really wanted. I needn’t go into the other logical alternatives that do allow for the goal you impose on him.

Once again you have applied a humanized version, by imagining an impatient God who just can't wait to get a job done. You agree He has the right to choose His method, and then illogically insist He can't do it that way, because it 'obviously' takes too long to bother with!


DAVID: “Evolution…is all explanatory and ‘logical’until our arrival, which is especially unusual and obviously very different than the earlier process.” […]

dhw: What process do you think he used to produce H. sapiens that was different from the process he used to produce all the other organisms in the history of life?

DAVID: Of course His process is the same, but producing us is a huge leap in physical and mental abilities.

dhw: You said it was a different process, which surprised me. I’m not at all surprised to hear that we have greater mental abilities. (Not sure that I could compete physically with some of our ancestors!) Same process, then. Another little hurdle jumped.

dhw: Now that you agree that he “probably” does have some of our attributes (I shall keep this quote for future reference), perhaps you will agree that one of the various alternatives might be true, and since they are logical, they may well be more likely than your own illogical one (single purpose, can do it any way he likes, but instead pursues 3.X billion years’ worth of “interim goals”).

DAVID: The bold is the problem you consistently have. God has the right to do it His way. Your's is a consistent humanizing complaint about Him.

dhw: It is not a complaint about him! It is a complaint about your illogical interpretation of “His way” and of life’s history! But now that you have agreed that he probably has some human attributes, why not consider the humanly logical explanations of evolution, as opposed to the illogical one I keep complaining about?

You've just admitted they are your human logical thoughts about God's methods and motives. Yes, you humanize God, just as I've claimed. Adler warns not to do that. God's method is exposed in the history of evolution, but not the reasons behind His choice.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum