David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 19, 2020, 19:56 (187 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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.

I don't start thinking about God wherever it is you do. I follow Adler's 'the Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes' as tantamount to proof that God exists and created us unique humans as His purpose. Keep wandering through endless possibilities. I don't.

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.

dhw: 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.

I am not demolished, much as you might wish it. You invent these possibilities about God. I don't and won't. I have my fixed view of Him.

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)

dhw: 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?

The ID folks all believe a designer created evolution and humans. They carefully avoid bringing in God. When you start reading ID stuff, maybe you'll understand their positions. Part of my conversion from soft agnosticism is a result of reading their material and attending one of their conferences. I've talked with Behe at that time.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum