David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, March 09, 2020, 11:07 (1718 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

dhw: 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: Once you endow God with human attributes, the game is over. God is not a human, and you've agreed with that point. We can only guess at His reasons for his actions. His role is as creator, and in His creating He has his own reasons for what appears. Certain things I can spot with good reason: the definite need for echoniches to be carefully created.

There is no dispute over the fact that econiches have to be balanced in certain ways if certain life forms are to survive. Nothing whatsoever to do with the illogicalities of your theory. (See below) God is not a human, but you have agreed that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, which means you have no reason to dismiss theories which endow him with thought patterns and emotions similar to ours. If he exists, we can take it for granted that he has his own reasons for what appears. What we cannot take for granted is that all your guesses must be right, and any other guess is to be dismissed.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Explained above.

You have not explained why it is a dishonest distortion to offer logical alternative theories to your own, incorporating your own statements,as above.

DAVID: Your worry about God waiting to reach our creation ignores the facts. The universe is 13.78 byo, the Earth 4.5 byo. Why aren't you bothered by those stretches of time? Your objections are totally inconsistent. Object to the entire delay. If God was thinking about us 13.78 byo He was planning to wait. That is my take.

If God exists, I would regard him as a scientist and an inventor, not a magician. Whatever his purpose may have been, he would have had to prepare our planet for life. I’m not going to argue with any of the facts you have listed. Our disagreement is not over the creation of the planet and its preparation to support life, but over your illogical theory of evolution! Must I repeat it? I suppose I must. Your God’s sole purpose is to design H. sapiens. He can do that any way he wants. But history shows us that for 3.X billion years he specially designs millions of non-human life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. before even starting to design the bits and bobs which eventually will or won’t form part of the only thing he wants to design: H. sapiens. When questioned about the logic of this, you admit you have “no idea” why he did it that way, but we mustn’t look for reasons because we can’t “know” them. And for good measure, any logical explanation of the “delay” must be dismissed because although God probably has thought patterns similar to ours, he doesn’t have thought patterns similar to ours.