David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, March 19, 2020, 12:01 (18 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You admit that we cannot know and can only guess at your God’s thoughts and reasons, but you offer only one theory of evolution based on only one fixed concept of your God’s nature, purpose and method, and you have no idea why he would choose such a method to fulfil such a purpose.

DAVID: Here is one huge difference. I told you over and over I don't try to understand His choice. I accept the history as His choice, nothing further.

I also accept the history as his choice. How does that come to mean the history is that God’s sole intention was to create H. sapiens, he could do it any way he wished, he designed every life form, econiche and natural wonder, and he did so in order to cover the time he had inexplicably decided to take before fulfilling his sole purpose? You accept YOUR INTERPRETATION of the history as being his choice, and you don’t try to understand (elsewhere you have "no idea") why he would have made what you believe to have been his choice. So maybe that wasn’t his choice, or that wasn’t his method of achieving his choice.

dhw: Your second comment is tantamount to saying that unless I accept your illogical theory, we will never agree. Not very helpful!

DAVID: No, what I have said is since we have such different views of God, unless we can find an agreeable description, we can never agree.

How can a description be agreeable? You are saying we will never agree unless I agree with your description. True. I disagree with your description because it is illogical, as I have explained. I do not offer you a single description, but various alternatives, all of which you agree are logical. But I do agree with you that we will never agree so long as we continue to disagree. Now that is logical.

DAVID: My position is logical from my point of view who God is. We cannot cross our differences as you humanize God.

dhw: There is no point in my repeating your own demolition of your “humanizing” objection.

DAVID: You have not demolished anything. Our views of God totally differ.

Then I will repeat your demolition. “He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logical thought.” Elsewhere you added attributes. It is patently illogical to dismiss a theory containing a probability on the grounds that it contains a probability.

DAVID: Logic is as logic does. My background does not allow your logic about biochemistry, and all the ID'ers agree with me.
dhw: [..] please explain what aspect of my logic about biochemistry is not allowed by your background and is accepted by all ID-ers.

DAVID: ID is sure there is a mind behind the biochemistry. See today's entry under the Davies thread (Wednesday, March 18, 2020, 14:53)

Unlike yourself, I am in agreement with the article. My logic about biochemistry is that there are (or let's say may be - it is a theory, not a fact) minds behind it (the intelligent cells advocated by the article) and there may be a mind (God) behind those minds. Your “background” apparently forbids you to even consider the theory of cellular intelligence, but you tell us the ID-ers love Shapiro. And do they all accept your theory of evolution as summarized above in the paragraph about God’s choice?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum