David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, April 12, 2020, 11:43 (114 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] The current size of the human population requires the size of the bush for food supply, as God obviously anticipated from the beginning of life.

dhw: How can the current size of the human population require the 3.X thousand million years’ worth of long extinct but apparently specially designed life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders that preceded the arrival of humans??????

DAVID: A total denial of fact: from initial bacteria to today' massive bush of biological complexity took the time involved. We require the present result to eat.

Of course evolution has taken the time it has taken! That does not explain why your God had to specially design etc.…bolded above.

DAVID: This is the same denial of the time evolution took.

Same again: How can I possibly deny the time evolution has taken? What I deny is that your God specially designed….bolded above.

DAVID: Again repeating a distorted version of my thoughts about God's thinking. All I have agreed to is that God thinks logically as we do, nothing more. "Emotions and attributes similar" is a possibility, but not any proof of how God thinks as He decides on purposeful activity.

dhw: Nothing can be proved, but since you believe human thought patterns (including logic), emotions and attributes are possible (originally probable), you can’t discount a theory which allows for them. You grumbled that my theories were meant to “deny God’s planning. Anything but God” – but all my alternatives were theistic, and you have accepted that they are all logical, in contrast to your own, as explained above.

DAVID: You never seem to realize your imagined self theism is always theism lite.

A new escape route. You now accept that my theories were not “anything but God”, but they present possible views of God that are different from yours. Nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with your personal image of God, though you warn us not to even try and understand God’s reasons for doing what he does. Why do you regard a God who creates an unpredictable spectacle as “liter” than a God who creates a bushful of puppets?

DAVID: We have a huge bush of life. Why does it exist? I have provided an answer which I think is correct. […] Can anyone think of a reason different than mine?

dhw: I would not question the article’s statement that our planet is deeply interconnected. It always has been, long before humans arrived. And when connections break, we get new connections and new econiches. That does not mean your God specially designed 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human econiches for the sake of humans who were not even there![/b]

DAVID: Again your theism lite: the bold tells us God didn't anticipate the humans he would eventually create!

Why would a food supply for non-humans tell us that God anticipated creating a food supply for humans? There is simply no connection. This latest escape route is even sillier than your previous one of “humanization”.

dhw: A reason different from yours? If God exists, he set up a mechanism whereby cell communities could work out their own means of survival in a vast variety of environments. For billions of years, and with no connection to humans, the huge bush of life continued to change as environmental conditions changed. Econiches and species came and went as species adapted / innovated or failed to adapt. We still have a free-for-all, but humans have incomparably more means of changing the environment and of adapting to it, and of creating and destroying econiches. There is no evidence that God – if he exists – is intervening, which suggests that either he has lost interest or is and always has watched with interest all the changing spectacles his invention has provided. Just an alternative to your guess.

DAVID: Thanks for your guess, a precise view of the real history…

Thank you. I’m glad you recognize the logic of my alternative to your own illogical guess.

DAVID: ….but not the bold. God is not revealed, remember? Reasoned faith tells me what He did and may still be silently doing. He is not just a spectator in your theism lite view.

If he exists, he doesn’t reveal himself, which is exactly the same as my saying there is no evidence that he is intervening. You are disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. If he exists, what is he doing? Either watching or not watching! What is your definition of “heavy” and “lite”, and how do you know that your hidden God is one but not the other?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum