David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 05, 2020, 19:02 (206 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Please accept the logic that what Adler taught me is the basis of how I think about God.

dhw: I do, and I note that what you build on that basis is not dealt with by Adler, and is completely illogical.

Constantly repeating the word 'illogical'solves nothing. For me it is entirely logical

dhw: […] you dismiss my humanizing theories because although you agree that God probably has thought patterns similar to ours, we can’t ”know” the truth, and so in some weird way the fact that we can’t know the truth justifies your sticking to your own theory, which I shan’t repeat in all its illogical detail.

DAVID: I'm glad you admit your theories are humanizing. I follow Adler's guidelines in stating we cannot know God's thoughts behind His purposes.

dhw: Of course we can’t, and that is why we both theorize. Since you agree that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, I don’t see how you can dismiss theories in which God has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours. And once again, your puppetmaster control freak is just as “human” as my experimenting scientist or my spectator enjoying an unpredictable spectacle which he has set in motion.

The purposes you assume God might have given thought to are all human guesses. God is not a human person.

DAVID: As for God's thought patterns, I have said He uses logic as we do and probably has emotions like ours. Why continuously distort that in discussing my approach. It is dishonest.

dhw: How can it be distorted? Once more: If he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, you have no reason to dismiss an interpretation of evolution based on the possibility that he has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours! What is the "dishonest" distortion?

Because all our guesses about His thoughts/reasons/ purposes are guesses. Attempt to present them but make sure they are described as guesses

DAVID (re suckerfish): So you want a sudden stick by one lucky fish who showed others to copy him? Or he luckily inoculated a bunch of females with his new mutation(s)? Design is easier to comprehend.

dhw: So did your God give a sudden “stick” to one lucky fish who showed others or luckily inoculated females etc. etc. Or did he round up all the pre-suckerfish and stick on stickers? Your question applies to every single new species: how did each one start, and how did the changes spread? We don’t know. But it is clear that organisms have a way of passing on strategies and solutions to problems once they have been discovered or invented. You need only think of bacteria learning to counter modern medicines.

dhw: You sneered at my explanation of the process by which suckerfish may have evolved their stickability. So please explain how you think your God did it.

DAVID: I don't have to explain God. He designs the sticker. Your explanation about suckerfish explained nothing. They either could stick or could not. Moving fish in water at various speeds will suddenly stick to nothing. Fish are slick skinned.

dhw: You asked me questions about how it happened, so I asked you the same questions, which I expanded to innovation and “spreading” in general. If you don’t “have to explain” how God did it, then why should I have to explain how the suckerfish and every other species did it? This is not how discussion works! :-(

Neither of us can explain how the fish did it by themselves. We have both established that point from the above discussion. You have no helpful; agency, which is obviously required. I have God.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum