David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Friday, March 13, 2020, 00:25 (200 days ago) @ dhw

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

dhw: 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.

I certainly have fixed ideas about God based on my studies. You have no fixed ideas. we differ. I will not unfix

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.

dhw: 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.

We agree about this point.;-)

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.:-)

dhw: 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.

My theory about God running evolution is based on very broad reading of many thoughtful books. The bolded portion above is your constant distortion of how I think about the entire subject. My conclusions are entirely logical to me. You have troub le in seeing my logic exactly because your version of God is so different from m ine.

dhw: 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.:-(

Sorry you're sad. I arrived logically at my position using my vision of God, which is certainly not yours.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum