David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell , Friday, March 20, 2020, 20:25 (1707 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 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.

dhw: You keep trying to limit the discussion to Adler’s two logical conclusions, but you know perfectly well that these are not the subject of this thread, which is the rest of your theory concerning your God’s powers and methods of achieving his purpose, and you have hit the nail on the head in your conclusion to the next exchange:

Adler also has a very specific book on how to think about God. I've told you.

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

dhw: Then I will repeat your demolition [of the “humanization” objection]: . “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: 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.

dhw: Yes, you have a fixed view, and even when you contradict yourself, you don’t and you won’t acknowledge your own illogicality. How would you react if an atheist said to you: “You invent these possibilities about a designer God creating life and running evolution in order to create us. I don’t and won’t. I have my fixed view”?

I don't contradict myself. What I contradict is your version of how I should think about God. What is illogical to you is logical to me. Of course I disagree with an atheist, and there is no way to change his mind. You won't come off your fence, even though I view your position as indefensible. Either chance or design, nothing else, and you accept design and are forced to consider God. But won't accept Him. Your logic stops short of a solution, which fine for you but not me..

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: 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.

dhw: I understand their position, and I totally accept the logic of their design argument, and did so even before I started this forum. Perhaps you should read the “brief guide” before you lecture me on design. The end of the section on “Evolution” is highly relevant (too long to quote here), and the conclusion of the guide itself summarizes two forms of madness, the first of which relates to theism, and the second to atheism, ending “they believe, however, that if they ever can consciously and deliberately design such an organism, it will prove that they themselves were not designed.”

That still does not tell me you are conversant with ID materials.

dhw: Now please tell me what aspect of my logic about biochemistry is not allowed by your background and is accepted by all ID-ers.

I don't believe you understand the complexities of the biochemistry of life as the ID'ers do, which requires them to accept design and the underlying information that comes with. Many of my posts are purposefully showing newly discovered complexities to make the point. When I joined this discussion my major point was: 'I'll produce continuous evidence of design, until God is accepted." I haven't changed. In discussing with you I am proselytizing to the world.