David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 07, 2020, 20:15 (170 days ago) @ dhw

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

dhw: 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.

Any evolved process God set in motion is under His control, since He can let it continue or stop it as He wishes, when He deemed that necessary.

DAVID: Anyone else finds it illogical, but dhw?

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?

You still don't understand God. God is in charge and what He does is logical for Him and that is enough for me.

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 logic is similar to ours. The other thoughts you reference were possible suppositions as answers to your questions about God's possibilities.

dhw: 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.

The bold is way off the mark. His choices may not follow our logical thought patterns. Copied from above. Applies: 'God is in charge and what He does is logical for Him and that is enough for me'. The science of logic is very strict and applies to God and us.

dhw: 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?

We cannot know if God has our emotions. He may well be totally emotionless. Adler thought His possible responding to prayer was only a 50/50 proposition.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum