David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, April 16, 2020, 12:10 (195 days ago) @ David Turell

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

dhw: 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: We can guess at possible reasons as to why God chose to evolve humans. You illogical problem is you envision "God as human in many ways. My approach is much simpler. God runs reality, and the history tells us what He did, but unfortunately, not why. I look for logical reasons, which you don't accept. We debate at different levels of views of God.

You look for and totally fail to find any logical reason why an all-powerful God, who can do what he wants in any way he wants, should specially design millions of now extinct life forms etc, so that they can eat one another until he specially designs the only things he wants to design: H. sapiens and food for H. sapiens. Nothing to do with my alternative explanations, which are a separate subject. On the subject of eating one another, I wrote:

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: Again an illogical approach to the process of evolution from bacteria to humans. God evolved us, and history shows us how He did it, so why question His motives and reasoning? He obviously knew We would need a huge bush for food supply, but you deny that.

No I don’t. I deny the need for him to specially design 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct non-human life forms eating extinct non-human life forms (past bush), if the only life forms he wanted were humans and enough life forms for them to eat (= current bush). And I go on to offer different explanations for the WHOLE bush, which you agree are all logical.

dhw: 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 are critical of the reasons I give for God's actions.

Thank you. I am also critical of your interpretation of God’s actions. My alternative theories are not criticisms of God.

dhw: 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: I have no idea what you want. God is not human, and all His reason are unknown requiring logical guesswork, but not thinking that He is considering human interests for Himself.

It was you who said he had a lot more interest than that of a spectator. I asked what that interest might be, and you have no idea, so what was the point of your statement? I was filing posts yesterday, and by chance came upon the following, which is linked to the virus problem, but ends with a revealing comment from you:

dhw: Bacteria sometimes help and sometimes hinder. If your God designed the protection, it would not be unreasonable to assume that he also designed the danger. Fair enough – perhaps it’s all part of the wonderful spectacle your hidden God may be watching. Just a thought.

DAVID: I'm sure God is watching, at His own level of personal thought. ("Cellular controls of protein paths", 6th March @ 16.56)

Yep, you’re sure your hidden God is watching, but you ridicule the idea that he created life so that he could watch it.

DAVID:you poison your own thinking by viewing God from the wrong viewpoint to start with. […]

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: I don't pretend, do I? Yours is a humanized God who likes spectacles!

That is one possible viewpoint. If only God knows the right viewpoint, what grounds do you have for telling me that mine is wrong and poisonous (bolded above)?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum