David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 29, 2020, 23:30 (59 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: There is no humanizing involved if I ask you to explain why an all-powerful God with a single purpose (H. sapiens) might decide not to fulfil his single purpose and to design countless other non-human organisms instead.

DAVID: As I've said many times, I can guess just as well as you can.

dhw: Apparently not, since you cannot provide and refuse to look for any rational explanation for the above guess.

You have the ability to look back at all the many guesses I have politely given you in the past. Don't tell me I haven't guessed at God's reasons for you

DAVID: Again, your so-called god backs off purposeful design and lets organisms do it themselves. Not very purposeful, but wishy-washy and humanoid.

dhw: The above encompasses special design AND organismal DIY, as he could use either method to provide himself with an ever-changing spectacle. You’ve said before that you think your hidden God watches us with interest. Why do you think that creating interesting things is purposeless and wishy-washy? Humanoid? Why do you think a God whose thought patterns and emotions and attributes are probably similar to ours (your words, not mine) cannot possibly have thought patterns, emotions and attributes similar to ours?

We can only know His logic is like ours. The bold is your humanizing. Adler specifically states God may not be interested or answer prayers. ("50/50")

DAVID: […] history tells us what God did, and since He is in charge as I view him, what happened had to be His choice of action.

dhw: Of course if God exists, history tells us what happened and of course what happened would have been his choice. We agree that he could do whatever he wanted, when and how he wanted. All the alternatives I have offered you logically fulfil these criteria. But you have chosen to interpret history and God’s choice in a manner that defies human logic, and that is why you refuse to look for a logical explanation.

Defies your humanizing logic, nothing more.

Transferred from “Back to Shapiro”:

dhw: I know your position and mine. I am just pointing out to you that your position is no more and no less “beyond a reasonable doubt” than that of the convinced atheist, and since you keep emphasizing that there is no point in using human reason to answer all the awkward questions, quite clearly you can’t answer them, which means your fixed beliefs are based on faith and not on reason.

DAVID: The bold is your usual twisted version of my views. I have politely given you 'guesses' about God's reasoning in the past and you have quoted them to argue against my views. I really can guess as much as you do, but it is difficult not to humanize God if you and I use human reasoning to guess why He chose to do what He did and how He seemed to accomplish His purposes.

dhw: I have used your ‘guesses’ to support my alternative views, not to argue against yours. Of course you and I can only use human reasoning, but your human guess concerning his purpose and his choice of method only makes sense if “if we do not apply human reasoning to the actual history.

The bold is is your usual distortion of my statement out of context.

DAVID: My fixed belief is God exists and runs the show with clear purposes in mind. Purposes on the way to a goal: 1) start life and keep bacteria around for larger help with more complex organisms (biomes); 2) create a huge bush of life with proper econiches to supply food for life to have the energy it constantly needs; 3) to use evolution to create humans with their most unusual mental capacity, whose existence or survival is not required as part of the previous bush of life.

dhw: Clear purpose, yes,... He creates it, but that does not mean he writes every word of the script.

If he runs the show, why not?

dhw: 1) Agreed. 2) All organisms need food, but why create or initiate a huge bush? Even a tiny bush has to supply food for life to continue. By isolating 2) you have left out the factor that makes your fixed belief so illogical – namely, that he creates millions and millions of twigs for the sole purpose of creating one: 3) No one will deny our unusual mental capacity, but there is not one multicellular species in the whole of the evolutionary bush of which it could not be said that their existence or survival is/was not required as part of the previous bush, since bacteria have survived very well without any of their “descendants”.

I've told you why I think bacteria survived while 99% of everyone is gone (note the bold). As for the size of the bush, it is fact. Really, how would you support the current 7.3 billion humans on a tiny bush? What is so illogical about your thinking is that the fact is humans arrived as the last stage of current life under God's control, and it is you using a human point of view wonder why God wasn't impatient and got right to us forthwith.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum