David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, February 05, 2020, 12:52 (151 days ago) @ David Turell

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,

DAVID: 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.

OK, all species are unique, but we are more unique than others. That still doesn’t explain why a God who knows exactly what he wants and exactly how to get it, decides to spend 3.X billion years not getting it but instead specially designing millions of other unique life forms etc. to cover the time before…oh well, you know the rest, but you resolutely refuse to acknowledge that the combination of these beliefs makes no sense. You just “have no idea”, and I mustn’t keep asking you a question you can’t answer.

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

History does not state that humans were his only goal, that he could create humans any way he wanted but chose not to create humans for 3.X billion years and instead…see above.

Dhw: […] 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.

DAVID: 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.

I keep trying to delve into the reasoning you impose on him to explain the choices you impose on him. Once more you obfuscate: “final purpose” suggests there were other earlier purposes. That would allow for one of the logical alternatives I have offered you: that humans only came into his thinking late on in the history of evolution. But you don’t like that, because it is your personal belief that your God knew everything in advance and was in total control. Process theology offers the possibility of a God who learns as he goes along. Nope, you know best, as below:

dhw: 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.

DAVID: 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.

Maybe he doesn’t WANT firm control. Maybe it is the unpredictability he enjoys. This would explain the phenomenon of free will, which fits in perfectly with a desire NOT to control. Why is this more “humanized” than a control freak?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum