David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, February 03, 2020, 13:04 (1753 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: 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.

But it is precisely your reasons that we are arguing about! Over and over again you tell us that the reason why God produced life was to produce H. sapiens. This is not history, it is a belief. And history only tells us what life forms exist/existed, but you insist that he designed them all himself; they would still make the same history if your God gave them the means of designing themselves. And then you give us a reason for his designing them: they were “interim goals” to keep life going until he designed the only thing he wanted to design! You guess at your God’s reasons for doing what you guess he did!

DAVID: 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?

You cannot assume this – it is a belief, but you know perfectly well that I do not find that argument by itself illogical. It becomes illogical when you combine it with the beliefs and the reasons described above. Why try? Because it's human nature to search for answers. Why did you write your books?

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.

DAVID: See above. Why guess when it all guesswork?

But you do guess, as above (he designed everything himself, and he did so to keep life going etc.) And your main reason for rejecting my alternative guesses was that they endowed him with human attributes which you now agree he “probably” has!

dhw: 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: 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.

I know that is your concept. I agree that he is fully purposeful (if he exists), but why is it called “lip service” if, for instance, I conceive of a God who enjoys his work, much as a painter enjoys his paintings (your image) and who finds enjoyment in hiding himself (your suggestion) and watching the unpredictable spectacle epitomized by his relinquishing control over the most complex of all evolved species, H. sapiens (to whom you believe he gave free will)? In other words, why is your concept of God any more authentic (not to mention logical) than any of my proposals?