David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Monday, March 30, 2020, 19:12 (203 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 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.

dhw: You have refused to guess why your God chose the method you impose on him for implementing the purpose you impose on him. You have consistently reiterated that you have no idea, that your theory is not illogical providing we do not apply human reasoning to the actual history, and you “cannot know or even try to know his reasoning behind the results I see.” The only guesses you have politely given me in the past are that your God may be interested in us, may want a relationship with us, may want us to admire his works, and may enjoy his works as a painter enjoys his paintings. None of these are an attempt to explain why, with his omnipotence and one-track-mindedness (H. sapiens is his only purpose), he chose to spend 3.X billion years not fulfilling his only purpose.

I've given you a specific reason. God chose to create a huge bush of life to support 7.3 billion humans as they now exist, requiring a huge food supply, which shows why He created the huge bush first as a recognized requirement. He knew humans were coming in huge numbers. Your humanized God doesn't seem to know what will be created later

DAVID: 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")

dhw: 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?

According to you God’s logic is NOT like ours, you have not answered my question in bold, and I have no quarrel with Adler’s “may not” and his 50/50, so please stop hiding behind him and answer the above questions.

incorrect. God's logic is like ours. My concept of God is that He is very purposeful, so your humanizing view is beside the point. He is very direct in His creations, and 'creating interesting things' is beside the point.

DAVID: 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.

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

dhw: What possible distortion can there be, since you consistently tell us that you refuse to apply human reason to what you believe to have been your God’s purpose and method of achieving his purpose (= your theory of evolution)?

See explanation of the bush above. On the other hand you denigrate econiches all the time.

dhw: […] 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”.

DAVID: […] 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.

dhw: Of course humans need a bush, but that does not explain why your God had to create 3.X billion years’ worth of bush and then destroy 99% of it when all he wanted was us and our bit of the bush. And no, I don’t wonder why God wasn’t impatient and didn’t get to us right away. I imagine God knowing exactly what he wanted. And so it is a logical conclusion that he wanted the whole bush, not just one twig or, if he really and truly only wanted one twig and didn’t produce it, then it is a logical conclusion that he was trying out different ways of getting it.

The bold is your human conclusion ignoring what we know. God created the universe, evolved it; the earth, evolved it; created life and evolved it and then had to experiment! You think about God in bits and pieces of objections as to how I conceive of him as consistent.

dhw: And that is where you object that this “humanizes” God, although he probably has human thought patterns and “his logic is like ours”, and we mustn’t try to use our human reason to understand God’s choices, which in fact are your illogical interpretation of God’s choices.

I've shown you are the illogical one with your Swiss cheese view of God. You are totally inconsistent, as usual.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum