David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 14, 2020, 22:02 (25 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your usual distortions of my statements. I don't try to understand His reasons behind His creations. You don't understand my concept of God, and of course everything about God is illogical to you because my God is not humanized and yours is, which leads to your constant confusion.

dhw: You don’t try to find any logic behind your illogical interpretation of the facts. You claim that God thinks logically like us, and I offer you alternative explanations of the facts in which your God would be thinking logically like us. Your sole objection is that although your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and attributes similar to ours, these logical explanations endow him with thought patterns, emotions and/or attributes similar to ours. And you think I'm confused!

You are not confused, but just refuse to accept who I am as a believer in God. I don't try to delve into His reasoning, since all we can do is guess. I accept what He did as what He desired to do. Nothing more. You like to dig and find everything illogical.


dhw: Nobody on this planet can prove anything concrete when it comes to the existence, purposes, nature and methods of your God.

Thank you!!! I have accepted God from clues and facts beyond a reasonable doubt, but I can not know His actual reasoning for His creations. I just accept them as His desires.

DAVID: It is an acceptance that we certainly can identify a purpose, as Adler does by describing our unique result from evolution. I totally accept the proposition that the uniqueness defines God's purpose, but in no way tells us why He made that determination.

dhw: I keep agreeing that our special powers make us unique, that our complexity - and that of all living things - can be used as evidence for God’s existence, and that we may indeed be part of God’s purpose in creating life. But for you, purpose begins and ends with the creation of H. sapiens! You refuse to discuss what might have been his purpose in creating the whole of life’s bush including us (except that the bush was designed to cover the time before he designed us).

The bold is your usual distortion. The bush was created during the time evolution finally got to us, and was absolutely necessary to create and provide the necessary econiches for the energy/food supply for all of life to continue to exist until we got here and since then. That has always been too logical for you: you reply they are always here, as if my point is an argument that is beside the point. Absolutely a necessary creation.

DAVID: You and I have made all sorts of proposals of God's thought patterns. They are all fun guesses to create and you love to think of all possibilities ad nauseum while never concluding anything. […] If, as you have admitted, we really cannot know His reasoning, what is the purpose in trying to guess? Fun and games? Nothing is ever proven. Nothing with so-called logic may be correct.

dhw: Then you might as well ask what is the purpose of this forum, of your books, and of every book that was ever written on the subject of God’s existence, nature etc. and the origin of the universe and of life itself (bearing in mind that even if the big bang theory is true, which itself is open to discussion, we cannot know what existed before it)? But I will give you an answer: even though we can never “know” the objective truth, unless there is an afterlife in which there is a God who tells us, it is integral to and admirable of the human spirit to ask questions and look for answers. This very spirit has led to astonishing discoveries that enrich people’s lives through science and technology, but in our case – through this little forum – there are no such benefits except for the immense personal satisfaction of joining each other in a friendly quest for the unattainable. “Fun and games”? The terms apply as much to your theories as to mine, if that’s what you want to call them. But I’m sure that your motives in writing your books and in joining this forum – and my motives in setting it up in the first place – were not quite as frivolous and as pointless as those terms suggest.

No the forum is fun and it allows me to continuously make my point. What has been created is too complex for chance. So design is required, and so is the designer, God. When you and I get to the point of discussing Him, you want to dig into His thoughts behind His creations. Neither Adler nor I do that. It is your problem with no solid answers for you. But is a portion of why you do not believe. When we debate evolution you must remember what you know about my firm view of God's activities in evolution. God ran the whole project with His end point in mind. That necessarily means each enlargement of a brain pan by 200 cc was God's doing. You try to talk around that point by offering naturalistic possibilities, no God involved. So we differ. I'm not illogical. I accepted God logically, and you don't believe in God. Starting at two different beginnings it is not surprising that we have few agreements between us. It is not surprising you don't find me logical because my thought patterns are not yours. Besides I have a wholly different view of the biochemistry of life, than whatever yours is. Yet let the debates go on! One day I might educate you.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum