David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Monday, April 13, 2020, 21:01 (199 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Your God is such a control freak that even a weaverbird can’t build its own nest without his “guidelines”! But please tell us what other non-human interests you think your hidden God has in the world he has created.

You just don't like or recognize a purposeful God who knows exactly what He is doing and why it must be done in advance.

dhw: Why would a food supply for non-humans tell us that God anticipated creating a food supply for humans? There is simply no connection.

DAVID: So now your view is God doesn't anticipate. Your escape is humanizing him.

dhw: No, my view is that if your all-powerful God’s sole purpose for creating life was to create humans, the only food supply needed would have been a food supply for humans, so why would he specially design millions of extinct food supplies for millions of extinct species?

Interesting confused view of evolution. The known history is what God did, and it is all perfectly reasonable, since it went from bacteria, still here and useful. And we have a food supply that fits the requirements. Still your very confused view of who God is.

dhw: My God is also seriously purposeful, and knows exactly what he is doing but, unlike you, I propose a purpose for the WHOLE of the bush. Your sole purpose is the creation of humans, and you have no idea why he created the WHOLE bush. Anticipation = he knows what’s coming. So he specially designs millions of non-human life forms and food supplies etc., but he knows that after 3.X billion years, he’s going to specially design humans and their food supplies. How does that explain WHY he specially designed the extinct millions when he only wanted one lot and could have done it any way he wanted? Please stop kidding yourself that my agnosticism lends logic to your theory.

Your confusion is your humanized version of God. My version does not keep me confused. you poison your own thinking by viewing God from the wrong viewpoint to start with.

dhw (transferred from “brain expansion”): Two days ago you wrote: “All I have agreed to is that God thinks logically as we do, nothing more. "Emotions and attributes similar" is a possibility…” You merely reduced probability to possibility.

DAVID: What I have really thought underlying all this is my God is totally different than your weakly imagined humanized God. My God does not possibly think as you want Him to.

dhw: Thank you for agreeing again that your God might possibly have thought patterns similar to ours. Yes, you have a fixed idea of God’s nature – he is a control freak. And a control freak – i.e. a God who thinks the way you want him to – can’t possibly create something that allows evolution to run freely. You are right. But that doesn’t mean God thinks the way you want him to think. And since the way you want him to think leads to all the illogicalities that wreck your theory of evolution (you have no idea why he would have chosen your method of achieving your purpose), one can only conclude that your theory of evolution might just possibly be wrong.

You create your own problems by your humanizing approach, while you can't seem to recognize that you do it. How about consulting some theists writings for guidance in how to think about God?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum