David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 01, 2020, 20:12 (16 days ago) @ dhw

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

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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.

We are talking about my beliefs, which you constantly tell me are wrong! Based on Adler's logic and mine, they are perfectly consistent. It is your problem, not mine.


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.

dhw: 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”)?

Wrong! I simply accept his actions without imagining why He picked His purposes. His purpose is established for me by Adler's reasoning .


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

dhw: 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.

Answered below as before:


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.

dhw: 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.

Of course it is a belief, based on facts I have reviewed. Remember you have no beliefs, just theories about a humanized God, as above.


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.

dhw: 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.

The bold is an insult to Adler who wrote a whole guide book about how to think about God, and I follow His rules. Remember he was a consultant to the Catholic Church, so there is considerable evidence he was highly considered as a theological thinker. Your thinking which is firmly outside belief. never follows Adler's rules, and is not surprisingly, very human.

Over and over I've agreed God could have given organisms the ability to design with guidelines, but I don't believe He did it and such a mechanism doesn't exist. We only see minor adaptations within species by the epigenetic mechanism, nothing more. Shapiro shows nothing more, but you love his theory, which helps you possibly get rid of God.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum