David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, January 27, 2020, 11:21 (1760 days ago) @ David Turell

Transferred from the “fish” thread:

DAVID: Your complaint of illogicality is due to your human view of God, nothing more. I think my God has acted totally logically. Stop abusing and misstating my opinions, which I have fully explained rationally.

I have not misstated them, I have quoted them. You have no idea why your God chose the method you impose on him to achieve the purpose you impose on him, and so you tell me I should not try to understand God’s logic, whereas it is YOUR logic I am questioning.

DAVID: My approach is not illogical. Adler has established a strong argument for God's purpose in desiring to produce humans as a result of the evolutionary process. I have fully accepted that argument.

I keep repeating that it is not in itself the problem we are discussing, but only becomes a problem when you link it to your other beliefs, as below!

DAVID: He and I have not tried to ascertain His reasons for doing it in the way He did. We both understand we cannot do that, since it all guesswork. You prefer to indulge in human guesswork.

Not quite. The human David has added several guesses: 1) Your God knows everything in advance and could achieve his purpose any way he wanted. 2) He preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation, lifestyle, econiche, natural wonder etc. in the history of evolution. 3) He decided not to start designing H. sapiens for 3.X billion years and therefore had to design all the above in order to keep life going until he started designing the only thing he wanted to design. Why do you leave out all these “guesses” of yours? And why, when they are challenged, do you complain that I am using human logic, or that I am somehow distorting the above sequence of your beliefs, or distorting your own comments when you say you have “no idea” why he chose such a method? ALL the explanations we offer are guesswork. And I do wish you would stop hiding behind Adler. You keep telling me he doesn’t even deal with the above beliefs.

DAVID: Go to it, but it is not worth the effort as it does not advance what we can know, just as 'angels on the pin head' proved nothing, but contrived to cause some mental fun work centuries ago.

We cannot “know” the answers to any of our fundamental questions, including the existence of God. If the only criterion for “worth the effort” is that the effort will advance what we actually “know”, then you and I have wasted eleven years so far, and you wasted time and effort writing two brilliant books on these subjects! You are in favour of human logic until you can’t use it to explain your theory, and you are dead against human logic if it suggests any explanation other than your own. I seem to attach far more value to your efforts than you do!