David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 07, 2020, 23:02 (198 days ago) @ dhw

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?

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

dhw: Of course they're all guesses/theories/proposals. I have never presented any of my alternatives as facts (how can alternatives be presented as facts anyway?), whereas you frequently attempt to phrase your own guesses as if they represented some objective truth. Please produce any “dishonest distortion” that you have found in any of my alternatives.

DAVID: You distort my thoughts. Your proposals about God are just simple humanizing.

dhw: you have accused me of dishonesty, and I have asked you why it is a dishonest distortion to argue that if, as you say, God has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, it is wrong to propose alternative theories in which he has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours. I don’t mind you disagreeing with these alternatives, but I really don’t like to be accused of dishonest distortion.:-(

What I have said is that we cannot know God's reasoning behind his choices of purposes. Using that bolded phrase just above over and over does not negate my reasoning about God's reasons. It is totally beside the point, and is a debate trick to say your reasoning should stand. I'm sure your don't mean to be dishonest as you ignore or miss the point of my position. The bold three paragraphs above is the same problem. I have started with one purpose for God, making us, which I think Adler well-established in his book, and make no other guesses about God's reasons. I am happy in my positions. ;-) As usual you have a problem in conceiving of what or who God might personally be and how He might think. I don't try. God is a purposeful God and does exactly as He wishes as a superhuman entity.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum