David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Friday, March 27, 2020, 21:53 (208 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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: The bold above is once again the same old total misstatement of my position. I don't TRY to explain His reasoning. Of course I could think of possibilities, but they would prove nothing. Like angels on pinheads, why try? And I refuse to back down from my point that most of your theories about God come from a human perspective.

dhw: All my theories and yours come from a human perspective!

Of course.

dhw: Once again you are confusing “his reasoning” with your own personal interpretation of his reasoning. You don’t try to explain why your personal image of an all-powerful God would not fulfil your own personal view of his purpose but instead would use your own personal view of his method of designing every single life form etc. individually, which he would do in order to cover the time which in your own personal view he has decided to take before fulfilling your own personal view of his purpose.

Of course I have decided upon a form of God's personality as all-powerful and precisely purposeful. Of course He then fits what I theorize as to how He does things. I have given reasons as to why I think He has done what He has done. But I will not go beyond that point. I cannot know or even try to know His reasoning behind the results I see.

dhw: And if you are not prepared to discuss anything that can’t be proven (a) there was no point in writing your books, and (b) there is no point in continuing this website.

My books are quite clear. I believe in God and how He had a specific purpose, as provided by Adler's book and his well reasoned thoughts. See below re' Adler.

dhw: You know as well as I do that none of our major questions, starting with the very existence of God, can be “proven”. If it could, we would have facts and not theories.


dhw: The rest of your post provides variations on the same themes, with your insistence that your choices are God’s choices, including the choice to delay, that we mustn’t humanize him, though he probably has similar thought patterns to ours, and that Adler has all the answers, except that he only offers humans as logical proof of God’s existence and purpose and does not provide one iota of support for the rest of your theory.

Stop denigrating Adler and my views of his books. His two books I have mentioned are clear guidelines. I don't dig into God's thinking about His purposes as guided by Adler's book "How to Think About God", (1980) which I had read several years before my first book. As for overall purpose for God, Adler's book "The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes" (1947), is a powerful philosophic discussion which cemented my convictions after I wrote the first book. It clearly gives a reason to accept us as God's purpose. It was a gift from a very devout Christian friend who knew what I had concluded and written.without knowing this Adler work. We both know and read Shapiro and others. How about Adler? The bold is your usual Adler comment. Adler's support is a clear picture of God's purpose. I was extremely pleased to find this support after I had already reached my conclusions. Your bolded remark has no place in this discussion. You don't know anything about Adler, except what I have told you. My theory about how God ran evolution has nothing to do with Adler, and never has. What is 'one iota' supposed to mean? I made it very clear in the past how Adler supports the purpose issue, nothing more. Just as his other book teaches how to think about God, nothing more. Starting as I did as a vague informal agnostic, a Jew by culture primarily, I needed to be self-taught to pursue the issue. In this arena of thought I am an autodidact. And you?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum