David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 14, 2020, 19:56 (122 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your whole series of comments about God's activities resembles a discontent spectator at a sports match. From your unhappy viewpoint, the manager and/or the team captain really have very little idea of what they are planning or how to conduct the action for the best result. You don't really know the persons involved, or how they reasonably think from their vast knowledge of the game, but in your opinion they are not doing what you think is correct. Your very weak image of your god leads you very astray from what real theists think.

dhw: If God exists, I am not in the least discontent with any of my theistic alternative explanations of evolution. I am only discontent with your interpretation of his use of evolution, because not even you can make sense of an all-powerful God with just one purpose (humans) proceeding to specially design billions of extinct non-human life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. so the life forms can eat one another before he specially designs the only things he wants to design!

Same manufactured criticism. It makes perfect sense to me.

DAVID: God started the universe knowing that humans were His final goal. His methodology was fully thought out in advance. He had no need to experiment or create spectacles.

dhw; Why do you state this as a fact? How do you know what God knows or knew, thinks or doesn’t think, can and can’t do?

I can have a theory, just as you do.


DAVID: Everything we know about are His deliberate creations. We theists don't second guess Him like you do. No wonder you are floundering around in a morass of your own human criticisms of a god which you describe, not realizing how much you are debating, from your strange viewpoint, with a humanized version. Note I do not capitalize your god versions.

dhw: I make no criticism whatsoever of God! The criticism is of your theory of God’s motives and methods. My various alternatives are not criticisms either. Why do you think a learning God, an experimenting God, or a God who enjoys his creations as a painter enjoys his paintings must be criticized?

More humanizing as usual.

DAVID: 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: I just don't like the combination of purpose and method you impose on your God! One of my alternatives is a God whose purpose is to create an ever changing spectacle. He knows exactly what he is doing, and what he creates in advance is the mechanism to keep the spectacle changing. End of that silly argument. Now will you please tell us what other non-human interests you think your God has in the world he has created.

We have no idea if God has your human interests you impose on Him. I don't go there


dhw: […] 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?

DAVID: 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: The known history is indeed what God did – if he exists – and you have not answered my question! Bacteria would still be around even if the dinosaurs had never existed. I’m afraid your confusion is not removed by telling me that I’m confused.

Still denying my version: God chose to evolve us, according to the history of His creation. Your own confusion is self-created.


DAVID: you poison your own thinking by viewing God from the wrong viewpoint to start with. And later: How about consulting some theists writings for guidance in how to think about God?

dhw: If God exists, only he knows the right viewpoint.

A real true statement about God, finally. all any of us can do is make logical guess from our individual viewpoints about who God is. Yours is a humanized God.

dhw: Meanwhile, we have dealt with your silly food supply argument, you have demolished your own humanizing argument, you have no idea why your God would have chosen the method you have chosen for him in order to fulfil the purpose you have chosen for him, and you have acknowledged that all my different alternatives fit in with life’s history.

Your tilted askew version of my arguments doesn't answer my conclusions taken from my view of God, certainly not your humanized version.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum