David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, January 26, 2020, 11:21 (164 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Once again you have applied a humanized version, by imagining an impatient God who just can't wait to get a job done.

There is no such imagining! Your starting point is always that your God wanted H. sapiens right from the beginning, and that he could do what he wanted any way he wanted. But you don’t know why he decided to spend 3.X billion years not doing what he wanted and instead designing the pre-human bush. I am proposing that since he could do whatever he wanted, he must have WANTED the bush. No impatience – just a different and absolutely logical proposal concerning the job he wanted to do. Experimentation and/or an on-going succession of new ideas is another logical possibility. This silly attack on “humanizing” logic is no defence of the illogicality of your own theory.

DAVID: 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?

DAVID: 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.

Of course they are my human logical thoughts, just as your thoughts are human and illogical. Using human logic does not mean claiming that God is a human being! I agree that if God exists, evolution is his method and we do not know the reasons or purpose behind that method. So how can you possibly justify your insistence that you know the reason or purpose behind 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life, ecosystems, strategies, innovations, natural wonders etc.: namely, that all of them were “interim goals” to keep life going before he started work on his one and only purpose? You don’t know his purpose, but you do know that your version makes no sense, which is why you have admitted that you cannot apply your human logic to the actual history!


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum