David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, February 02, 2020, 12:34 (15 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 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.

You cannot explain the logic of your combined beliefs (why you think a God who can achieve his purpose any way he wants decides to focus his attention on designing anything but the only thing he wants to design). This suggests to me that the combination of your beliefs could well be wrong, even if individual parts may be right. You agree that my alternative explanations of evolution are logical, but you tell me they are wrong because they humanize God, although God very well could think like us. Your problem is your inability to find a logical explanation for the combination of your beliefs, and a logical reason for rejecting my alternatives.

DAVID: […] He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logical thought.

dhw: Thank you. […] 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: Answered below as before:

You have not answered it.

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.

DAVID: 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.

None of us has anything but theories, and your “humanized” dismissal of my alternatives, such as experimentation, on-going development of ideas, or WANTING the ever changing spectacle, is irrelevant now, as shown above.

DAVID: […] 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. [David’s bold] 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.

DAVID: 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.

I didn’t know Catholics had a monopoly on how to think about God, or that you and Adler were not “very human” in your thinking capacities, but I have no quarrel with Adler and you can follow any rules you like. I just wish you would deal with the arguments instead of hiding behind vague references to what Adler does and doesn’t deal with in his book. So would you now please answer my question: 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? (I am challenging your dismissal of my theory as “lip service”.)

DAVID: 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.

That is not an answer. You know very well that your guidelines consist of preprogramming or dabbling, which is the opposite of autonomy. The fact that you don’t believe it does not explain why a God who created an autonomous mechanism that led to the great bush of life would be less of a God than a God who designed everything to automatically obey his instructions. “Humanizing” is now irrelevant. And you do not need to keep repeating that Shapiro’s theory is unproven and is not a fact, just like your own theory and any other theory, including that of God’s existence.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum