David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, May 11, 2020, 13:10 (1655 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Still total control, because it implies He is always watching to be sure the process achieves His goals or He interferes with it and must be altered. You imply He must be hands-on for every tiny reaction and total control need not be that strict.

dhw: That’s fine with me. It really doesn’t matter which of your three options you go for (preprogramming, occasional dabbling or total hands-on). The fact remains that at long last, you have your God setting the process in motion and letting it continue unless he decides to interfere. This is precisely the process of evolution that I have been suggesting for years, so thank you for accepting this as a possible explanation of evolution's history.

DAVID: My theory is not yours. The discussion was originally about natural processes like during Earth's evolution changes from volcanoes, tectonic movements, temperature marked variations, not organic chemistry and variations in living processes. No independent IM.

The discussion here was/is about God’s control. If you are prepared to believe in a God who sets processes in motion and then lets them continue unless he decides to interfere, you can hardly pick and choose which ones. You believe he created the whole shebang from the start, so he set up all the “natural processes”, whether geological or biological.

DAVID: I don't question what His choices are.

dhw: Sorry, but no, you don’t question what you believe was his choice: namely one purpose (H. sapiens) and one method, namely to directly design 3.X billion years’ worth of non-humans and their food before directly designing non-sapiens homos and their food before directly designing sapiens and our food.

DAVID: […] Why don't you accept the history as I do?

dhw: I do accept the history, because I believe evolution happened, and if God exists, then of course he chose it. But what I have bolded above is NOT history. It is your illogical interpretation of God’s purpose and method of achieving that purpose! Meanwhile, you have agreed that all my alternative explanations of evolution’s history are logical.

DAVID: But the bolded IS the history. Your objection is God's purpose to create humans as a prime purpose. Here we are in total disagreement.

Even your belief in God is not history, let alone your interpretation of his purpose combined with his inexplicable method of achieving his purpose (by not designing humans until he had designed 3.X billion years’ worth of non-humans).

DAVID: Once again, I will only accept that God uses the same logic we do. I will not humanize God as you constantly try to do.

dhw: But you have no idea what could be the logic behind the one and only guess you are prepared to consider, and you reject any logical theory which entails a thought pattern similar to ours, although God probably has thought patterns similar to ours.

DAVID: We do not know if God thinks of purposes as we do.

dhw: So why do you assume that he doesn’t and has therefore chosen a combination of purpose and method which defies human logic?

DAVID: It only defies your agnostic thinking. With faith God logically does all of it as history shows.

You confess that you have no idea why he chose the method you impose on him for achieving the purpose you impose on him. This has nothing to do with faith in God – it is faith in a theory that makes no sense even to you. You admit that the theistic alternatives I have offered ALL show your God logically doing what history shows, so please stop pretending that my agnosticism makes your inexplicable version logical!