David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell , Sunday, February 02, 2020, 20:03 (1754 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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. ...Your problem is your inability to find a logical explanation for the combination of your beliefs, and a logical reason for rejecting my alternatives.

The combination of my beliefs starts with the rule of not trying to guess at God's reasons for what He did. History tells us what He did, never why. And my beliefs start with the logical assumption (Adler) we are His purpose. My logic is fine with me. It is your problem because of the way you illogically try to apply imagined reasoning to God which are worthless guesses at a human level. We cannot know His reasoning, why try?

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:

dhw: You have not answered it.

See above. Why guess when it all guesswork?

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.

dhw: 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”.)

It turns on the concept that God is fully purposeful and stays in full control, something you always try to apply as if God were human and might relinquish some control.

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.

dhw: 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.

Same answer: It turns on the concept that God is fully purposeful and stays in full control, something you always try to apply as if God were human and might relinquish some control.
Your concepts of who God is, and mine, are totally different. I do not have a theory of God's existence. I think it is proven as my books indicate.