David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 06, 2020, 20:58 (166 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My view is God steers the entire direction of evolution and watches over every branch of life. You resurrected an unfettered IM and I still insist it must have God's guidelines.

dhw: On Sunday 3 May, you wrote:”Once set in motion some events simply evolve, others are designed.” On Tuesday 5 May, he “steers the entire direction of evolution”. Please make up your mind. Secondly, how does the deliberate creation of an autonomous IM “lessen his power”? It lessens his control, as with his invention of free will (and nasty viruses). The autonomous and maybe God-given IM is a logical alternative to your own theory, and your “insistence” provides no defence of your inconsistency and illogicality, and no logical reason for your rejection of my alternative theories.

Full control allows God to ignore some processes and favor others to achieve His goals. Your logic does not describe my God.

DAVID: Nothing is askew except your refusal to use logic about God's use/control of evolution. And I forget nothing. The history of evolution tells us exactly what happened. Start with bacteria and end up with humans. Earlier forms are built upon to create new advances. Species come and go in the process. Earth has a finite capacity for hosting life. All early forms must go to make room for future forms.

dhw: Thank you for once more abandoning the silly food argument. No objections to the above, which has nothing to do with the illogical part of your theory (see below).

Not abandoned.

DAVID: As for method, it is a fact that He chose to use evolution, because that is what happened.

dhw: With my theist hat on, I agree.

DAVID: No one, especially you, cannot know His reasons for the way He accomplished His purpose.

dhw: You mean no one can know his reasons. No one can know his purpose either, or whether he directly designed everything or “let some events simply evolve”. How does this lend support to the illogical and inexplicable part of your theory?

Anyone else finds it illogical, but dhw?

DAVID: But to remind you, since you can't seem to remember my argument that God uses evolution for all He does: the universe started in an early simple form and then evolved; the Earth was a barren rock and evolved to allow life; life was started in more simple forms and then evolved to very complex forms.

dhw:b All perfectly logical, but as usual, you omit the 3.X billion years’ worth of directly designed non-human life forms etc. plus food, in order to directly design his only purpose, H. sapiens plus food! Please stop harping on what we both accept and omitting what you yourself find inexplicable.

I don't find it inexplicable. Only you do.

DAVID: Of course you have distorted an analysis of what God did, by denigrating his full intentions and overall control of purposes. Of course He knew the "vast and ever changing bush of life" was necessary to produce. You have forgotten it was all just for spectacle as you have invented a humanized God, or could you possibly changed your view, and accept that God is not human??

dhw: Why is it a denigration of his “full intentions” to suggest that he fully intended to create all sorts of life etc.– as opposed to: he fully intended to create H. sapiens and therefore directly created 3.X billion years’ worth of non-humans and their food but you don’t know why? He knew that it was “necessary to produce” what, and necessary for what? Why should he not have created a spectacle which, in your own words, he could watch with interest? Of course your God is not human, and I have never said he was! But as you observed yourself and would like to forget, he probably (later changed to possibly) has thought patterns, emotions and attributes similar to ours. Therefore it is absurd to dismiss theories just because they entail thought patterns etc. similar to ours!

Resurrecting old arguments from your humanized view of God. My God has an identified purpose by the book "The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes". The only thought pattern I've ever fully accepted is His logical is similar to ours. The other thoughts you reference were possible suppositions as answers to your questions about God's possibilities.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum