David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, March 12, 2020, 08:02 (230 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

dhw: 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 can add all the humanized thinking you wish but you don't create my God.

That is because you have certain fixed ideas, and are prepared to jettison logic rather that consider any alternatives. And you still haven’t explained why plural “thought patterns” cannot include the thought patterns I have proposed in those alternatives.

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

dhw: 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: No glimmer, but an example of how I think is in the other thread: "My logic about the bigger size [of our brain] at first: it contained early regions that helped in complexification and then left when the job was over. I will not apply that as God's actual thoughts." No trace of humanizing, but a good logical reason.

That is precisely the same as my own theory concerning shrinkage, but couched in different terms: our brain reached a certain capacity, and when complexification took over, it proved so efficient that some parts of the brain were not needed. No trace of humanizing, but a good logical reason. Absolutely nothing to do with your theory that your God preprogrammed or dabbled each expansion before it was needed, plus shrinkage, concerning which you wrote: “I don't know why God allowed a bigger brain before it shrunk. Do you?” (And why “allowed” – I thought you thought he preprogrammed or dabbled it.)

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

dhw: 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: Where did that idea come from? I'm absolutely sure of Adler's reasoning.

See above: “The only thing I am sure of is God thinks logically, nothing more.” I’m afraid I took that to mean that the only thing you were sure of was that your God thinks logically, nothing more. (But I have no objection to what you have told us about Adler’s reasoning. It’s the rest of your theory that is so illogical.)

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.

dhw: 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. ;-)

DAVID: Neat olive branch. You've slid over the fact that your God is very human. Mine is not.:-)

You’ve slid over the fact that I offer various alternative versions of God and his motives and actions. You also slide over the fact that your highly individual theory of evolution makes no sense even to you, which is why you say you needn’t or even shouldn’t try to understand your God’s logic. And you slide over the fact that you think your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and attributes similar to yours. And finally you slide over the fact that the only thing you are sure of is that your God thinks logically, even though you can’t (and don’t need to) understand his logic.:-(


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum