David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 04, 2020, 22:00 (233 days ago) @ dhw

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

dhw: But it is not history, and it does not “require” your conclusion! Most species are “unique” in their different ways,

Our uniqueness is unrivaled among all living organisms. I'll repeat 'The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes' is a very strong philosophical argument that cannot be denied.

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!

My simple non-convoluted reply is God simply chose to evolve humans which history states, since God is in change of making history.

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.

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.

dhw: 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.

His ability to think logically as we do does not explain His reasoning behind His choices, which you keep trying to delve into. All we can look at are the choices, and from Adler's argument, based on our capabilities, it is logical to accept we are His final purpose for evolution.

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.

dhw: 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.

He would be less of the God I see. I've made the point many times. I see God as decidedly purposeful, knowing exactly what He wants and sees to it it happens. The freedom of design, you impose, would allow evolution to branch off in many directions with no desired endpoint. But again, you prefer a very humanized God in your imagination, who doesn't need firm control.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum