David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, May 08, 2020, 11:12 (1658 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: 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.

Thank you – the perfect description of my alternative to your hands-on God, who directly designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder in the history of life (although all he ever wanted was H. sapiens). Instead you now accept that your God meets your criterion of “control” if he set the process of evolution in motion (through his invention of intelligent cells) and let it continue, although he could stop it with a dabble if he wished.

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

And for me too. Each of my theistic theories is logical for both of us, so why should it not be logical for him? (Your usual “humanizing” moan is dealt with again below.) The problem is you think you understand God, and you think he could not possibly have any other purpose and method (and nature) than those you attribute to him in your theory, even though you can’t understand the logic.

dhw: …how can his logic be similar to ours if you have no idea why he would have chosen the method bolded above.

DAVID: The bold is way off the mark. His choices may not follow our logical thought patterns. […] The science of logic is very strict and applies to God and us.

“May not” leaves room for “may”. And if you cannot find a logical reason for what you believe to have been his method of achieving what you believe to have been his purpose, by the strict science of logic it is totally absurd to insist that your illogical explanation is right and any alternative logical explanation must be wrong.

dhw: …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?

DAVID: 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.

Back to we “cannot know”. Of course we can’t. That is why we theorize. But if it is possible (or even probable, according to you) that he has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, then it remains absurd to dismiss theories on the grounds that they may entail thought patterns and emotions similar to ours!