David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Monday, March 16, 2020, 18:58 (195 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: With my theist hat on, I also accept what he did as what he desired to do. But I do not accept your interpretation of his actions and his desires, because the combination of those particular beliefs leads even you to admit that you have “no idea” why he would choose your interpretation as opposed to my different logical alternatives.

DAVID: "I 'admit' my position as a way to think about God that is entirely different than yours. God does his own thing for his own unknown reasons. I find your logic is humanized logic about God, who is not human. Adler warns against this in his book about theistic thinking.

dhw: You keep trotting out the “humanization” objection. Once and for all, you have invalidated this yourself by agreeing that your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and attributes similar to ours, so it is illogical to dismiss alternatives because they include something that is probable!

The moment you bring human reasoning to God's reasoning you have humanized Him. God's reasons are not your reasons

dhw: Econiches are necessary for all forms of life! You continue to gloss over the illogicality of your COMBINATION of beliefs: God’s sole purpose (H. sapiens), power to fulfil it any way he chooses, inexplicably chooses not to fulfil it but instead designs 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. until…not we “got here” but he put us here!

DAVID: "Same old humanized complaint. Your view: Why wasn't God impatient? He obviously wasn't.

dhw: Forget “humanized”, for reasons given above. And I see you've already forgotten the irrelevant econiche defence of your anthropocentric theory. Obviously he wasn’t impatient, because if he was in total charge, and could do what he wanted any way he wanted, he clearly did not set out from the very beginning – as you claim – to design H. sapiens! So maybe if H. sapiens was his aim from the start, he had to experiment; or life was an experiment, and H.sapiens was a latecomer to his thoughts, some patterns of which you agree are probably human.

The bold is the same old struggling to define God. My God knows exactly what He wants and how to achieve it. Your bold does humanize God.

DAVID: Logic is as logic does. My background does not allow your logic about biochemistry, and all the ID'ers agree with me. I am happy to keep producing as I've done today with a new entry. :-)

dhw: The ID’ers agree with your case for intelligent design, which I accept as perfectly logical. Some biochemists accept the logical conclusion that intelligent cells denote intelligence, others may think cells are preprogrammed or dabbled with. 50/50. I must confess, I didn’t know that all ID’ers were so vehemently opposed to Shapiro and the rest. I was under the impression that some of them liked him, but he didn’t like them. But yes please, do go on producing. Your entries are an essential part of my ongoing education, and I’m sure there are many others out there who also appreciate them.

The ID folks love Shapiro and his work. They just insist, as I do, there is a designer behind all of it. New entries will keep coming.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum