David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, March 10, 2020, 11:16 (1717 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: If he exists, we can take it for granted that he has his own reasons for what appears.

DAVID: After all that verbiage above, you admit a key point in bold.

The “verbiage” concerned your repeated references to econiches, which have nothing to do with your anthropocentric and illogical theory of evolution. It is blindingly obvious that if he exists, God must have had his reasons. The key point is that your guess concerning his reasons lacks logic, whereas you have agreed that all my own guesses are logical.

DAVID: The usual distortion precedes it: "you have agreed that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours". The only thought pattern I have mentioned is the use of logic, nothing more which you consistently try to imply.

When you say he could very well think like us, and probably has thought patterns and emotions and attributes (another quote) similar to our own, it does not give you the right to confine the plural nouns to “use of logic”! In any case since you admit that you have no idea why he would have chosen the method you impose on him, it is painfully obvious that your theory demands a different “use of logic” from our own.

DAVID: I'm sure we share emotions, but since He is God He may not use them as we do. You accept God is not human and then try to make Him seem like us. You have never corrected your problems in thinking about God.

Of course God is not human, but having thought patterns and emotions similar to ours does not make him human! It just means we have certain things in common. If he is indeed first cause, he must have created all those thought patterns and emotions out of himself anyway, so your conclusion is perfectly logical: he could very well think like us and have similar thought patterns etc.

dhw: 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: You present my statements from your point of view only, not mine.

If he probably has plural thought patterns similar to ours, why must I interpret that as meaning he probably has no thought patterns similar to ours except his use of logic (which is incomprehensible to us)? See above.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Same problem of arguing with God taking so much time, when that is what the facts tell us. Your objection may make sense to you, but I have given you all the time that passed.

The facts do not tell us that your God specially designed every twig, or that he did so for the sole purpose of covering time until he could design H. sapiens.

DAVID: God is not human and my facts of timing tell us God moves at His slow desired pace.

The only facts you have are the bush and the time. The above theory is your personal interpretation of how and why the bush of life came into being.

DAVID: Your objection still describes a God who shouldn't be so patient in reaching goals. Impatience is your human attribute imposed on Him.

Not “goals”, but one “goal” according to you, which leads to some of your illogicalities. I have never said he was impatient! I have simply explained why your theory as summarized above doesn’t fit the facts: either humans were not his only goal, or he could not create them any way he wanted, or they were a late thought, or he was experimenting, or he invented an autonomous mechanism to create the unpredictable, ever changing spectacle etc. (though always with the option of dabbling if he felt like it). All of these logically explain the bush in accordance with different goals.

DAVID: Also, your prime problem is you do not feel humans are that important to God. For you, we are probably just an afterthought. Adler strongly disagrees and I join him.

I have no problem accepting the importance of humans. I find it logical that he should have thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and so a being who could think like him (since he “very well could think like us”) and appreciate his work (“like a painter enjoying his paintings”) and worship him and come up with ideas of its own would indeed be important to him – perhaps his crowning achievement so far. The theist in me agrees with you and Adler. It is your theory of evolution that I object to. You have agreed that all the alternative theories listed above concerning the bush of life and our place in it are perfectly logical, and they all illustrate how he uses logic/has thought patterns like our own. So what’s your problem?