David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, February 04, 2020, 11:31 (1752 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Yes, a belief based on our completely unusual result from evolution. Our uniqueness requires the conclusion we were God's purpose.

But it is not history, and it does not “require” your conclusion! Most species are “unique” in their different ways, but even if we were to accept your conclusion, it does not square with your other beliefs, as follows:
dhw: 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: I'm sorry you cannot see God as I do. You reason from unbelief or disbelief.

I reason from human logic. You say you don’t give reasons, but you do, and you say your beliefs are logical but you have no idea how to string them together logically, and now you pretend that your illogicality is excused because I am an agnostic!

DAVID: […] 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?

dhw: […] Why try? Because it's human nature to search for answers. Why did you write your books?

DAVID: My books, not surprisingly, argue God does exist.

I know. You asked why try? Why did you want to write books based on human reasoning to prove the existence of God if human reasoning amounts to worthless guesses?

DAVID: Why guess when it all guesswork?

dhw: 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!

DAVID: My guesswork only examines what God produced, not 'His reasoning behind each step, other than recognizing the logic we are/were His purpose.

See above for your illogical reasoning. See elsewhere for your acknowledgement that my alternative guesses are logical, your dismissal of them on the grounds of “humanizing” your God, but your agreement that your God probably has the same thoughts and emotions as ourselves, which automatically makes your dismissal illogical.

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: Your humanized views of God's emotions are all possible. All we can know it what He created not why. You like to submerge yourself in His possible reactions to His own work but it is equivalent to the number of angels on a pin head. No need to bother.

Forget the different views of his possible motives and methods. Just tell me why a God who creates an autonomous mechanism to enable organisms to do their own designing is less of a God than one who makes them all into automatons.