David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, April 15, 2020, 14:06 (190 days ago) @ David Turell

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!

DAVID: Same manufactured criticism. It makes perfect sense to me.

What does “manufactured” mean? The illogicality could hardly be clearer, and although you now disown your earlier admission that you have no idea why he chose such a method, the only responses you have to the criticism are that all animals must eat, and we can’t know God’s reasons for choosing the combination of purpose and method you have chosen for him.

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?

DAVID: I can have a theory, just as you do.

Of course you can. This whole forum is a discussion on different theories to see what makes sense and what doesn’t. You agree that all my alternatives do, and you claim that yours does but you can’t or mustn’t explain how. All you are now doing is repeating your beliefs, as if this provided the "perfect sense" that you can't actually provide!

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?

DAVID: More humanizing as usual.

You admit that your God probably/possibly has thought patterns, emotions and attributes similar to ours. Now please answer the question: why do you regard the above theories as criticisms of God?

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.

You wrote that "He has a lot more interest in His purposes than being a spectator." Please tell us what other non-human interests you think your God has in the world he has created.

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

I have offered you a theory in which I “recognize a purposeful God who knows exactly what he is doing and why it must be done in advance”. The fact that you don’t go there is irrelevant. But do please tell us about your God's other interests.

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

God chose to evolve every species that ever existed, according to your history of the creation. Now please answer my question.

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.

DAVID: 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.

I offer several viewpoints, but if your God probably/possibly has thought patterns, emotions and attributes similar to ours, how can you claim that such a view is “the wrong viewpoint to start with”? You agree that only God would know the right viewpoint, so please stop pretending that yours is right and mine are wrong.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum