David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, February 08, 2020, 15:48 (14 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God knows what He wants to do. He is extremely purposeful as I view Him.

dhw: And as I view him too. Unfortunately, your version of what he wants to do and of his extreme purposefulness, and of how he sets about implementing his purpose (= what he wants to do) makes no sense even to you, whereas my versions are all perfectly logical, as you keep agreeing, and since he probably has “similar thought patterns and emotions” to ours, the “humanizing” element is irrelevant.

DAVID: Distortion of my thoughts about God's thinking: Simply, in thought all I think is He is logical as we are, n o more than that [dhw: but you don’t understand his logic so how can he be logical as we are?] , and He may share the same emotions we have. My reasoning does not go to the conclusions you reach about Him or about how I keep reporting what I think about Him. Quit implying reasoning that is not mine in what I write.

I have asked you again and again to pinpoint what you call my distortions, and you are never able to do so. I’ll try again. Your reasoning is: humans are unique and are therefore God’s one and only goal; he is always in full control; he specially designed all other life forms throughout the history of evolution as “interim goals” to cover the time he had inexplicably (you have “no idea why”) decided to take before implementing his one and only goal, which he could achieve in any way he wanted. My alternative, logical explanations of life’s history are invalid because they “humanize” God by giving him such rights as to sacrifice control, to experiment, to learn as he goes along, to enjoy his creations; and yet your God probably thinks as we do and has similar thought patterns and emotions. Please tell us which of these points is a distortion.

dhw: Do you deny that by giving us free will, he deliberately sacrificed control over us? If you agree, then why should a more extended sacrifice of control (i.e. over evolution itself) make him a lesser form of God? I am disputing your claim that the concept pays "lip service" to God. A God who creates autonomous, free-living organisms is just as much a God as one who only creates automatons!

DAVID: He purposely created us as the final step, which your comment ignores, with free will and knew we would have moral and ethical principals developed by our consciousness given by Him. Recent research, I haven't produced here, shows infants exhibiting some of them! This doesn't make him a 'lesser' God. I agree with your last sensible sentence.

Thank you. That was the point of my comment. Deliberately sacrificing control does not make him lesser, and my theory is not merely “paying lip service” to God. We are gradually agreeing that your objections to my alternative theories (humanizing and sacrificing control) have absolutely no bearing on their possible truth. We are making progress.:-P

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum