David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 30, 2020, 20:04 (163 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: […] you refuse to look for any logical explanation for the gaps between the above suppositions. Why are you so afraid of logic?

DAVID: Your 'logic' is a constant humanization of God's thoughts.

dhw: our “humanization” escape route refers to my alternative theistic theories (which you agree are logical, while also agreeing that your God “very well could think like us"). However, my criticism of your theory has nothing to do with humanizing God’s thoughts, and everything to do with your lack of logic: you "have no idea" why an always-in-control God with just one purpose (H. sapiens), and the ability to achieve that purpose any way he wants, chooses to delay fulfilling his one purpose for 3.X billion years and therefore has to design millions and millions of life forms, econiches, lifestyles, strategies, natural wonders etc. just to keep life going until he starts to fulfil his one purpose. I have not offered you a single humanized thought here, but am simply pointing out that YOU have created an explanation of evolution and your God’s intentions which makes no sense even to you. (I’ll give you the quotes again if you insist.)

I wouldn't have proposed my theory if it did not make perfect logical sense to me. I'm sorry you cannot see it, but that is because you constantly humanize God's thoughts. You complaint is really a version of I can't think clearly and only you can.


DAVID: I use Adler's discussion in his book that establishes for Adler and myself that humans were God's purpose in controlling evolution. You know, full well, my thoughts about how God exerted His controls are solely mine, but based upon Adler' conclusion which accepts that God ran evolution. Adler never gets into how God did it; it was not his purpose in presenting his thoughts about God. Adler is fully part of my side of this discussion.

dhw: “Fully part” just about sums up the irrationality of calling upon Adler to justify a theory which is entirely your own. If God exists, of course he ran evolution, or let’s say he created the mechanisms for it. The claim that he ran it by designing every single innovation etc. is just one of your guesses, along with the others noted above. But we know from your own words that the way you have him running it makes no sense even to you, which is why you wish to turn your back on logic.

All Adler establishes is God's purpose in evolving humans, which I fully accept. From that point on it is then my logic which is to propose how God might have conducted His work, which as you suggest, might be direct or indirect. Of course they are only logical suggestions, just like your humanized thoughts God might have had. But I see the complexity of design, as you admit you do, and know a designer is absolutely needed. You find that difficult to swallow and steadfastly perch on your agnostic fence, I guess with your designer, whoever He might be. But to balance yourself on the fence there are always two other possibilities: God showed organism how to do complex designs by themselves *(God lite, but really no more than God 'sort-of'), or magically, Shapiro to the rescue, cell committees can do it all by themselves (no God ever needed). Covered all the bases, no logic required. Just a painful sort of balance. Is agnosticism logical, or a preference?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum