David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, February 06, 2020, 15:12 (150 days ago) @ David Turell

M
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.

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

There is no denigration. You simply keep dodging the problem of why he also produced all the other less unique creatures when according to you he only wanted to produce us.

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.

DAVID: 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.

If they really and truly were his goal right from the beginning, it is hardly unreasonable to ask why he “chose” not to produce them, but to produce millions of less unique life forms instead. You have no idea. Here are two possible explanations: he was experimenting; humans came as a late afterthought. Please don’t moan about humanizing, since you have acknowledged that he and we “probably have similar thought patterns and emotions”.

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?

DAVID: 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.

A non-answer. My thoughts can hardly make him fully human, unless you know of a human who can create universes and all sorts of living beings. I have used free will as an example of his deliberately sacrificing control. How does this make him “fully human”? If he willingly sacrificed control over animals like us, why does he become a lesser form of God by sacrificing control over the whole bush of life?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum