David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, March 21, 2020, 13:36 (221 days ago) @ David Turell

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:

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

Unless Adler has told you to think that your God not only had one purpose (H. sapiens), but also had the means to fulfil it in any way he chose, but chose instead to design 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms, econiches, lifestyles,natural wonders etc. to cover the time before starting on his roundabout way to design H. sapiens, your remark is irrelevant to our discussion of your personal theory of evolution.

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”?

DAVID: I don't contradict myself. What I contradict is your version of how I should think about God.

You can think about God any way you like, and so can I. But 1) I am disputing your theory of evolution, the combined details of which you cannot explain, and 2) I offer alternatives whose logic you accept, but YOU then tell ME I mustn’t think about God in such a way (“humanizing”), although you said yourself that God probably has thought patterns and emotions and attributes similar to ours. So you reject a theory that is based on what you yourself think is probable, because...what? Only you and Adler know the right way to think about God? Aw shucks!:-(

DAVID: Of course I disagree with an atheist, and there is no way to change his mind.

And there is no way to change the mind of anyone who has a fixed view.

DAVID: 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.

I readily admit that I sit on the fence and stop short of a solution, and I am wrong one way or the other, and I have the utmost respect for people who have made their decision (provided it does no harm to others). What does that have to do with the illogicality of your theory of evolution or the logicality of the alternatives I offer?

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.

DAVID: 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.

I have no objection at all, and never once have I disputed the logic of the design argument. I have always stressed that it is a major factor in my inability to embrace atheism, just as the concept of an unknown, hidden, sourceless, eternal, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent intelligent mind is a major factor in my inability to embrace theism. Now please tell me what aspect of my logic about biochemistry is not allowed by your background and is accepted by all ID-ers.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum