David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, March 24, 2020, 14:32 (12 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Your theory is illogical because you have a fixed view that your God could have fulfilled his one and only purpose any way he chose, but chose to spend 3.X billion years not fulfilling it. You reject other theistic interpretations of the facts solely on the grounds that they “humanize” God although you say your God probably thinks like us humans.

DAVID: My concept of an all-powerful God is that He cam do anything He wants in any way He wants. You are right. It is possible He is not fully all-powerful, but considering what He has created, He appears to be all-powerful. You describe Him as less than that in your questioning. Your worry about the delays is an obvious humanizing impatience factor that you keep raising. How do you know God might be impatient?

dhw: I do not describe him like that in my questioning! I offer different hypotheses, which include an all-powerful God and a God who is not all-powerful. I have never ever described him as impatient: that is (1) your attempt to gloss over the illogicality of an all-powerful God having one purpose but not fulfilling it! Logical explanations would be that if that was indeed his only purpose, he is not all-powerful; or he is all powerful, but H. sapiens was not his only purpose. (2) It is you who insist that there was a delay which you can’t explain!

David: You don't seem to read what I answer to you. The first bold shows how you distinctly worry about a delay, when God knows what He wants to do in my theory. That is direct implication God should not be impatient as you view it in my theory.

God knows what he wants to do in all the theories I have offered you! And you agree that they are all logical and fit in with the history of life. I do not worry about a delay – I worry about a theory which insists that there was a delay and which cannot supply a single logical reason for it. I have supplied a logical reason: experimentation, but you reject that because your personal concept of God is that he “can do anything he wants in any way he wants”, and experimenting would be “humanizing”, although your God probably thinks like humans! I have also offered the theory that God didn’t think of humans until late on in the history. No “delay”, but a logical explanation for the 3.X billion years he spent designing other life forms (or letting other life forms design themselves).

DAVID: The second bold always ignores the fact that I do not question God's choice of time and method.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You do not question your interpretation of your God’s choice of time and method!

DAVID: I simply accept the history as showing what He did over time. Why must you insist I explain that which I do not try to explain? I can think of possible reasons for time delays, which would be pure guesswork. You guess, as you seem to want to. I won't, as it proves nothing.

The history does not show that humans were his purpose from the start, that he could fulfil his purpose any way he chose, that he specially designed every single life form, econiche, natural wonder etc, or that he did so in order to cover the time before he started specially designing pre-humans and humans! Your view that there was an inexplicable delay is only caused by the combination of these highly subjective interpretations of the history.

dhw: You wrote: “Logic is as logic does. My background does not allow your logic about biochemistry, and all the ID’ers agree with me.May I take it that your background now allows my logic about biochemistry, and it does not in any way run contrary to what ID-ers believe? (But see our exchange under "Revisiting language" to restore the agnostic balance.

DAVID: You supply the agnostic balance. I don't. You have recognized the extreme complexity of the biochemistry of life as extremely strong evidence for design, but you avoid choosing a designer who must exist, as as true agnostic. The debate will continue!

Fine, except that I reject the word “must”. I have explained why the design argument is balanced by the equally unbelievable “evolution of intelligence” argument. And I take it that my logic about biochemistry fits in with your own logic and does not run contrary to what ID-ers believe.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum