Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 04, 2020, 19:29 (478 days ago) @ dhw

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

dhw: 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!

Your silliness is really exposed. God did not design accidental errors in living biology. Do you know the definition of 'accident'?

dhw: 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.

I can't answer a bolded imperfect premise re the meaning of 'accidental'.

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.

dhw: 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.

Of course God may follow a different pattern of logical thought than you or I do. You are arguing from your human viewpoint as to why He chose his method of creating humans. His choice is from His desires, not logic, but his choice of evolution must be logical in his mind. We cannot know the reasons for His desired goals, although you constantly want to guess!

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?

dhw: 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!:-(

I have written above Adler's thoughts. Mt theory comes directly from Adler's exposition about our obvious vast difference from animals with abstract thought and consciousness which came through evolution. My bold is perfectly clear as you dodge and refuse to accept my opinion about Adler. He is key to my reasoning which only dodges your contrived views of my approach to how God ran evolution. You still don't allow the thought God had the right to choose his method of creation. I'll admit you sometimes give lip service to the concept, but constantly revert back to an opinion His choice of method doesn't fit your human reasoning. Remember the bolded statement of yours above, a perfect example. Must I remind you, your approach to your intentions are not God's, as much as you try to humanize Him.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum