David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, April 03, 2020, 13:27 (210 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You continue your weird bolded idea. God as creator did what he had to do through evolution. You idea still implies He should not have been patient, but impatient. How human!

dhw: Did what he had to do? Who forced him? I have told you again and again that patience has nothing to do with it. I agree with you that your all-powerful God would do what he wanted to do, but if he only wanted one thing, he would therefore do that one thing. He didn’t, and so the logical conclusion is that either he did not want just that one thing, or he did, but had to experiment in order to get it.

DAVID: You refuse to accept my repeated point that the bush of life as a food supply was absolutely required and needed to be created before we appeared and took over. Purely logical.
And:
DAVID: I given you totally logical reasons for the bush first. Why do you totally refuse to accept my totally logical reasons for building a nutritious bush first? This is one area where guessing at God's reasons are obvious.

You keep telling us that we cannot find and should not look for a logical reason for your God’s method of producing H.sapiens, and yet once again you fall back on the same old food supply argument: your God, whose sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, and who could get what he wanted in any way and at any time he wanted, could not have designed H. sapiens if he had not first of all spent 3.X billion years designing billions of other life forms, econiches, lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders extant and extinct, all “absolutely required” so that the life forms could eat one another before your all-powerful God designed the only thing he wanted to design. According to you, we didn’t just “appear” – he specially designed us, just as he did everything else. You have no idea why he chose this method, which you say is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”. You try to disown such comments, or claim that I have distorted them, but they fit in precisely with your remark below concerning his reasons for his decisions. You don’t know them, you can’t know them, and so you cannot offer any logical explanation for your theory of evolution.

dhw: And you still haven’t told us how you know God’s logic is like ours.

DAVID: I assume so.

dhw: In that case, you assume that God has thought patterns similar to ours - logic entails thought patterns, as I'm sure you know.

DAVID: Another debating trick. I'm discussing only His use of logic, not indicating I know His reasons for His decisions, except for the above noted, necessary bush of life.

If you don’t know his reasons, you don’t know his logic or his use of logic. The bush of life was necessary only for the life forms of their time, and you have no idea why for 3.X billion years…as above.

DAVID: I just told you why one aspect of the universe was used to support what we need. Science will tell us more if we both live long enough.

dhw: Berlinski quoted Wittgenstein's famous assertion: "even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched.'" If your God exists, how can science possibly tell us his thoughts?

DAVID: It won't, but the complexity it finds will be proof of His existence, and give us a better understanding of His methods, and better guesses st his reasons.

I’m sorry, but I have as little faith in your predictions of what science will tell us as I have in Dawkins’ predictions.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum