Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, July 04, 2020, 10:22 (523 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] The 'errors' are accidents not planned. But we both know death is built into life. Death has nothing to do with this argument. Death is planned, not an accident, and you understand that I would think. Why did you drag it in?

dhw: I’d have thought that as a doctor you might have realized that most deaths are the result of a malfunctioning biological system. So the errors that cause death are planned, but the errors that make us ill or prevent us from being cured are accidental?

DAVID: Death is designed into the system with wearing out along with specific illnesses of aging.

So your God deliberately designed all those parts of the biological system that wear out and kill old people, but he accidentally designed all the errors in the biological system that kill off young people as well as old people. This is getting silly!

dhw: ... perhaps you would tell us why you think a God who deliberately designs the imperfect system we know is more “human” and less purposeful than a God who is unable to design a system without imperfections

DAVID: Your premise is not mine. I judge that no God can make perfect living biologic system. It bothers you, not me.

You attacked my proposal as “imagining a God with a human personality” and: “My God knows exactly what he wants and does it” – as if mine didn’t. So please answer my bolded question.

DAVID: I describe a purposeful God who expects errors in the system.

I know what you describe. Please, please, answer my bolded question.

DAVID (under “immune complexity”): Our immune system should not attack us, but it does under some circumstances which are mistakes by the control systems. The mistakes are that the protections put in place do not work.

dhw: So not only did your God design a system with mistakes, but some of the safeguards he put in place don’t work either. But this doesn’t “humanize” him!

DAVID: Same complaint. Did a human make the universe?

Of course not. I have suggested that he designed the mistakes deliberately. You now have him deliberately designing the mistakes to kill old people, and only those that kill young people too are apparently accidental! But a God who designs deliberate errors AND accidental mistakes apparently is not “humanized”, whereas a God who designs exactly what he wants to design is “humanized”!

Transferred from “brain expansion":

dhw: […] you have agreed that in all my alternatives, he DOES think logically as we do, but according to you, that "humanizes him", and although according to you he probably has thought patterns similar to ours, we mustn't think he does.

DAVID: The bold is the usual distortion of my thoughts: we and He use the same logical methods. […]

dhw: What “logical methods”? If I have a single goal to create one thing and the means of achieving it, I will use the means of achieving it. That is my logic. How is that the same logical method as having a single goal to create one thing and the means of achieving it, but not achieving it until after creating millions of other unrelated things?

DAVID: The bold is a perfect example of your human thinking applied to God. Thank you. Makes my point.

Your point was that “we and He use the same logical methods.” My human logic and your version of God’s logic could hardly be more different! Your version is God saying: “I want only one thing, I have the power to design it, but I’ll design something else which is different from the only thing I want to design.” Please explain how this denotes the same logical method as mine.

dhw: Once again, please stop dodging.

DAVID: I don't dodge while you complain about a God you do not fully understand in the way I do. I'll still follow Adler's logic as you follow Talbott.

dhw: Adler’s logic, so you have told us, does not extend so far as to cover your theory bolded above. I am amazed at your claim that you fully understand God, and if you do not dodge, then please at last explain the logic behind the bolded theory above.

DAVID: Adler's writings give us a very clear and logical reason for understanding God's purpose that He wished to produce humans. From that point the rest of the theory that God chose to evolve us is logically quite clear. On page 291 Adler completely demolishes evolutionists by stating that our immaterialist nature cannot be explained by a naturalist evolution. Adler is fully aware of evolutionary theory as espoused by naturalists. As he believes in God, I would guess he would agree with my thoughts. Since you haven't read Adler, how can you complain?

I do not complain about Adler! I complain about your theory that your (sometimes) all-powerful God had only one purpose – to create H. sapiens – but directly designed millions of other, now extinct life forms, natural wonders etc. that had nothing to do with humans, before he directly designed lots of different homos before he directly designed H. sapiens. I keep asking you to explain the logic, and all you do is hide behind Adler, who you have told us quite explicitly does not cover your theory! Yet again: please stop dodging!:-(

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum