David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, March 26, 2020, 16:56 (183 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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.

DAVID: I've agreed they are logical if considering a humanized God. Don't misuse my comment as you debate.

dhw: I suppose I had better repeat that you believe God probably has thought patterns similar to our own. So my alternatives are still logical in the light of that belief.

DAVID: The only thing about God's thoughts I am sure about is His logical thought. Guessing about His thought patterns for His reasons for accomplishing His purposes is still pure guesswork.

Then please stop harping on about humanization. You are sure that he thinks logically, you can’t find a logical reason for your interpretation of his combined purpose and method, so please refrain from dismissing logical theories on the grounds that they are only logical if God’s thought patterns (logic) are the same as ours. We don’t know if they are or aren't, but even you think they probably are!

DAVID (under “Bilaterians and Ediacarans”: […] Once again you are wondering why God waited to create us, a humanizing view of God.we simply know He decided to take the time.

dhw: I do not wonder why he waited. I challenge your authoritative assumption that he decided to wait!
dhw: 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.

DAVID: The delay is obvious in the historical record. It exists! Your comment doesn't fit reality.

dhw: It is only a delay if the action takes place later than it should have done! If designing H.sapiens was NOT your God’s sole purpose or he thought of humans late on, there was no delay. If your God was experimenting to get what he wanted, there was a delay with a logical explanation. All three theories logically fit reality. If your God was all-powerful, had only one aim but did not fulfil it until he had produced millions of other things, there was a delay for which you admit there is no logical explanation. Your theory is not made any more convincing by your insistence that we must accept it and not question its logic. The rest of your post reiterates this blinkered approach, your objections to humanization despite your acknowledgement of your God’s probable human thought patterns, and your clinging to the coat tails of Adler, the logic of whose basic tenets I keep accepting though you keep pretending I don’t.

DAVID: Again your humanized view of God again thinks God might have produced us earlier. Logically possible, but we only have a time lapse.

Which can logically indicate that, since according to you he can do whatever he wants in any way or at any time he wants, either we were NOT his purpose from the beginning, or we were but he didn’t know how to fulfil his purpose.

DAVID: But I view the history as God's creation, and don't wonder about the time schedule.[…] I don't TRY to explain the delay.

Once again, you have CREATED the delay, because a delay means something is not done when it should have been done.

DAVID: Adler is not coattails but a reference to a brilliant 20th Century philosopher. Adler's book gives us a clear reason to accept us as God's purpose.

And for the thousandth time, I accept his logic. It is the logic of your extrapolations from this single theory that I challenge.

DAVID: Remember you use Shapiro coattails among others.

I do not try to extrapolate illogical conclusions from his theory (see "Back to Shapiro") or to evade awkward questions just by mentioning his name.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum