David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell , Saturday, February 08, 2020, 20:19 (1748 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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. ....Please tell us which of these points is a distortion [moved for continuity].

Total distortion again. Read carefully as I have answered before: God chose, for his own reasons to create humans with consciousness through the process of long-term evolution. We can guess at reasons (which you constantly do in human fashion), but logically recognize they are only guesses. He did't just 'fill time': He evolved us with a huge bush of life to provide the necessary econiches for the energy life needs to control the time it took for evolution to create us. All shown by the history, IF one accepts the point God is in charge of creating everything. Your bold above questions why He made that choice, and that is from a very human point-of-view approach: why should I be patient when I can be impatient? He's been around forever, time is of no issue To the God I think about. Your usual humanized view is on exhibit below:

dhw: 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.

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.

dhw: 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.

Perhaps. Your God doesn't resemble my God. All God did was make us responsible for our own deeds which was His wish. Doesn't fit your purpose in bringing it up to try to say He is not in tight control of evolution, which He certainly was in order to be sure we arrived with our exact very advanced attributes, not required by the pressures of environment, as non-changing apes show. We left the trees because we could with the changes we were given by God. Accept that God is a purposeful creator, and amazingly it all makes sense.