David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, February 01, 2020, 11:34 (1755 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Your responses to date have been that you have no idea why he chose that method, the method is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”, or we can’t know God’s reasons for doing what you believe he did. Of course we can’t “know” anything, but how does that make your belief “perfectly logical” to you if you can’t find an explanation? And why do you consider it to be illogical that if your God created or facilitated the vast variety of life that preceded H. sapiens, he might actually have wanted to create or facilitate it as a purpose in itself, not an "interim goal"?

DAVID: Same old repetitive mantra, misusing using my statements out of context.

The context has always been this same theory of yours. What’s more, you continue to agree that you have no idea why he chose your version of his method, and you continue to refuse to use human reasoning when asked to apply your theory to the actual history. Both bolded below.

DAVID: God had the perfect right to chose to evolve humans over time, since I view Him as in total charge of all events, as you note above, but use it as to question the choice. Totally humanizing: why did He wait if He didn't have to. I cannot know His reasons for that choice (and you cannot even guess = you have no idea), but we know that was His choice as events attest.

We are not talking about God’s rights! It is your belief that he is (and wishes to be) in total charge, and your belief that he had only one purpose, and your belief that he chose to wait. None of this is knowledge! Events only attest to the bush of life, with humans a latecomer. Everything else is what you call guesswork.

dhw: And why do you persistently reject the possibility that your assumptions are wrong when there are alternatives which make perfect sense, as you admit? “Humanizing” is your mantra, but you have agreed that your God 1)“very well could think like us” and 2) “probably does have some of our attributes”. This admission gives at least as much justification to a “humanizing” theory as to a theory which requires suspension of human reasoning.

DAVID: No admission as you try to contrive it. Bold #1 means God uses logic much as we do, nothing more.

If you can’t understand his logic, i.e. you cannot find a logical explanation for what you believe to have been his purpose and his choice of method, then how can he be thinking like us (or “using logic much as we do”)?

DAVID: Bold #2 means He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logical thought.

Thank you. That is precisely the point. If he probably has similar thought patterns and emotions, there is no reason to reject out of hand theories which attribute possible similarities in thoughts and emotions to him. Therefore your complaint that my alternative, logical theories are mere “humanizing” is totally irrelevant. All our “guesses” are based on possibilities, and if these are actually “probabilities”, then our guesses are more and not less likely to be true.

DAVID: But I cannot know why He chose to delay the appearance of humans over 3.8 billion years. You can continue to use human reasoning and apply it to Him. I won't.

You don’t refuse when it comes to “proving” his existence, but you refuse to apply it to your theory concerning his purpose and method, because you know you can’t apply it. However, I wish you would acknowledge that your version of his choice IS nothing but a belief, and it is perfectly possible that there was no delay at all, and that the hugely varied history of life as we know it could be precisely what he wanted all along.

DAVID: We remain far apart in our view of how God operates. You agree that design is obvious but give lip service to God as the designer, when it is logical that a designer is required. My 'fixed' image exactly conforms to Adler's rule as to how to think about Him.

I’m sorry, but I do not believe there is any human being on earth who is in a position to tell us how we should think about God. Nor do I know what you mean by “lip service”. Why is a God who creates a mechanism to enable organisms to do their own designing any less of a God than one who designs millions of automatons to do exactly what he tells them to do? Please answer.