David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, February 23, 2020, 08:52 (1733 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Adler's philosophic points are the basis of my approach. Should I ask you to ignore Shapiro? The fact you cannot follow my logic is you problem of not knowing Adler.

dhw: I follow your logic concerning the uniqueness of humans, their complexity as proof of a designer, and even the possibility that they were your God’s ultimate purpose. This is what you have told me also constitutes Adler’s logic. You have also told me that Adler does not deal with your personal theory of evolution, whereby your God, who can do what he wants however he wants, designed every twig of the bush of life and did so in order to keep life going for 3.X billion years until he started designing the only thing he wanted to design. So please stop hiding behind Adler.

DAVID: I'm not hiding behind Adler. His points are the start of all my reasoning.

But it is the continuation from Adler that is the illogical part of your theory.

DAVID: The usual mishmash of of distortions about my reasoning. He uses logical reasoning as we do, but that does not mean we can ever know His reasoning for His purposes. My concept of God is totally different than yours, which results in our enormous differences in thinking about Him. the gulf means neither of us will every convince the other.

dhw: If the above is not your fixed belief, please tell me what I have distorted. Vague comments about different concepts of God do not make your theory any the less illogical.

DAVID: My comments are not vague. My God is purposeful, knows exactly what He is doing, and what He has to do to achieve his goals.

Agreed. Our disagreement is over your interpretation of his goal (not goals in your case) together with your interpretation of what he “has to do” in order to achieve his goal (H. sapiens). Even you have “no idea” why he “has to” spend 3.X billion years etc., so maybe your guess concerning his goal and his method is wrong.

DAVID: On the other hand your God is no sure of Himself, wants to experiment, has no endpoint in mind as He bumbles His way along. Purely humanized God with all the foibles.

I have no fixed idea concerning a possible God’s possible goal(s) and methods of pursuing his goal(s), which is why I offer alternatives. If I accept H. sapiens as his goal, I offer a scientist experimenting in order to get what he wants; or I offer a scientist experimenting with life itself and getting new ideas as he proceeds. I don’t know why you call this “bumbling”. I also offer a God whose purpose is to create an ever changing spectacle for himself to enjoy at many different levels. “Humanizing” is a non-argument, since according to you it is probable that he has thought patterns and emotions similar to our own. That does not mean he is unsure of himself or bumbling. He is getting exactly what he wants.

dhw: We can agree that it is sheer luck that some creatures are “fit” enough to survive. That puts an end to your claim that your God is always in control. This has nothing to do with Adler. I have no problem with him, as above. It has everything to do with your theory as bolded above, plus the fact that you now agree that your God was NOT in total control, since he left it to chance to decide which species survived. And that fits in perfectly with my proposal that he gave free rein to evolution, apart from the occasional dabble. Good to see you moving in my direction.

DAVID: Letting some species disappear is part of the plan. Got to leave room for what is coming. We are no closer.

Leaving it to chance to decide which species survive and which species die out does not fit in with a God who is in total control. But it fits in perfectly with the proposal that he set the process in motion and then let it run itself (with occasional dabbles).