David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, May 07, 2020, 11:44 (1659 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

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

If some events simply evolve as opposed to being designed, he is not in full control! He is only in control of his reactions to those events! And my logic is not an attempt to describe your God! It simply shows up the inconsistencies in YOUR description of your God – which changes every other day anyway.

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?

DAVID: Anyone else finds it illogical, but dhw?

It appears that you and I are alone on this website. Why don’t you just stick to the arguments? And why don’t you admit that if you have no idea why your all-powerful God chose to directly design H. sapiens and his food by first directly designing 3.X billions years’ worth of extinct non-humans and their food, you cannot claim that it makes sense to you?

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!

DAVID: 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.

Not “resurrecting old arguments” – these have been the arguments all along. You have identified God’s sole purpose as H. sapiens. So how can his logic be similar to ours if you have no idea why he would have chosen the method bolded above. And if his logic is similar to ours, then how can you dismiss theories which even you agree are logical according to our logic? And if in answer to my questions you tell us that your God probably (only later changed to possibly) has thought patterns, emotions and other attributes similar to ours, why do you now dismiss theories on the grounds that they may entail thought patterns, emotions or other attributes similar to ours?