David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 05, 2020, 20:37 (230 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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.

Again you denigrate our amazing uniqueness with the lame excuse that all animals have a degree of uniqueness.

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

dhw: 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.

Doesn't answer the point. Since God is on charge, and evolution arrived at humans by the method He chose, and as an endpoint, they are/were His goal

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.

dhw: 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.

Of course there were, on the way to humans. So?

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.

dhw: 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?

I don't view a purposeful God as in any way human. He is God, not in any way a human person, per Adler. You thoughts about Him make Him fully human. God made us not to be automatons, so you note, we can produce evil acts by ourselves. We also have the brains to fight tornadoes and dangerous viruses which His processes have also produced. Ah, maybe He saw the need s and made sure the human brain could handle them, as I've noted in my books.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum