David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, January 28, 2020, 10:46 (244 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You quote my statements out of context and mis-interpret them.

DAVID: [Adler] 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.

dhw: Not quite. The human David has added several guesses: 1) He 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: What Adler deals with is how very logically to think about God, the unknown personality, and how to not humanly guess about His thoughts and motives.

Now please tell me which items on the above list of your guesses (none of which apparently play any part in Adler's philosophy) is a misinterpretation of your beliefs, and what other context you were referring to when you said you had “no idea” why your God “chose to evolve humans over time” and “nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”. And what is the above list if it is not your human guesses about your God’s thoughts and motives as summarized in 3)?

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.

dhw: 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! ;-)

DAVID: No, I simply follow Adler's warnings, of which you are totally unaware.

Once more hiding behind Adler. Why don’t you answer the points I raise? If Adler tells you that you are wasting your time discussing issues about which we cannot “know” the truth, why on earth did you and he write your books in the first place? I can understand your desire to avoid facing up to the illogical implications of your theory, but I’m afraid Adler can’t help you.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum