David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, March 11, 2020, 12:00 (200 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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: Usual distortion. My thoughts are absolutely logical; I don't try to know His reasons, and your guesses at a human level are logical as they humanize God.

If you can’t explain the reasons for the combination of purpose, nature and actions you impose on your God (purpose: H. sapiens. Nature: can do whatever he wants in any way he wants. Actions: designing anything but the one thing he wants to design), you can hardly claim to have logical thoughts. My guesses are indeed logical, and as you have agreed over and over again, your God probably has thought patterns (plural) similar to ours.

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.

dhw: 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”!

DAVID: I have the right to fully characterize how I think God logically thinks and nothing more.

Of course you do. How does that come to mean that his plural “thought patterns” cannot include the patterns I propose in my different alternative explanations of evolution?

DAVID: […]. You accept God is not human and then try to make Him seem like us.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: The only thing I am sure of is God thinks logically, nothing more.

But you can’t understand his logic because you have no idea why he would choose the purpose and method you impose on him. I too would expect him to think logically. And I am delighted that you are not sure that your illogical theory is correct or that my logical alternatives are incorrect. At last a glimmer of light!

DAVID: I'm simply accepting God runs evolution so as to produce us, based on Adler's reasoning.

Fine. It’s one possibility among others, and you are not sure of it because you are only sure that your God thinks logically. This is progress.

DAVID: I stick with facts, and you invent possible goals and purposes for Him, as if He were human. And later: Your God is not my God in any way. He has definite goals and purposes in mind and creates them at His own sense of timing.

The only fact in your theory is that there is a bush of life and humans are the last twig so far. The rest is what you call guesswork. My possible alternative goals and methods arise out of our shared belief that if God exists, he would indeed have definite purposes and would fulfil them in his own good time, probably has thought patterns and emotions and attributes similar to ours, and would think logically. However, since the latter is the only thing you are sure of, and you have agreed over and over again that my alternatives are all logical, whereas you cannot find any logical explanation for the combination of unsure beliefs that make up your own theory, I am delighted to welcome you to a new era of open-mindedness concerning the possible purposes and procedures that have governed evolution. It’s been a long wait. ;-)

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum