David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, March 08, 2020, 11:14 (1719 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: 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 know you have said that, but you have also said what is bolded (and you have said it at least three times in different ways). You offer a theory which raises unanswerable questions about God’s logic. I offer alternatives, all of which you agree are logical, but all of which entail endowing your God with possible human attributes. There is no “debate trick”, and it is not dishonest to say that if you agree that God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, you should not dismiss such theories on the grounds that they endow God with thought patterns and emotions similar to ours!

DAVID: 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.

I have included your position in two of my alternative theories. I know you are happy to stick to your theory, and I agree absolutely that if God exists he must be purposeful and will do exactly as he wishes. All my alternatives present just such a God, and they all remove the illogicality of a God who has one purpose (us), can fulfil it in any way he chooses, but chooses not to fulfil it until he has specially designed millions of non-human life forms, natural wonders etc, the purpose of which is to cover the time he has inexplicably decided to spend before fulfilling his one and only purpose. Now please explain why it is a dishonest distortion to propose logical alternatives to your theory which entail human attributes, when you yourself agree that your God probably has human attributes.