Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Monday, July 06, 2020, 15:48 (33 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Molecular errors in living biology are just that, much as you try to contrive if differently.

dhw: Of course errors are errors. But you insist that your God designed “living biology”, and you tie yourself in intellectual knots, telling us that he deliberately designed the “errors” to weaken and kill old people, but it was impossible for him to build the system without accidental “errors” that would weaken or kill all of us, and so he tried to provide safeguards, but some of those didn’t work.

A great description of my viewpoint. No biological living system can be designed perfectly. That is the truth. I accept God, warts and all, as you view Him.

DAVID: We use the same logical methods of thought. The logic behind His choices is unknown to us.

dhw: How can a “logical method of thought” be the same as ours if we can’t understand the logic?

The 'logic' resides in God's reasons for his choices. We can't know that.

DAVID: You still don't allow the thought God had the right to choose his method of creation. […] Must I remind you, your approach to your intentions are not God's, as much as you try to humanize Him.

dhw: Of course God chose his method of creation! “Must I remind you” that your approach to his intentions and methods is illogical (hence the dodging), whereas my alternatives – which you agree are logical – are dismissed on the grounds that they humanize a God who you have told us probably has thought patterns similar to our own.

DAVID: Of course they are humanizing. I don't need to list the examples. You are saying again, Adler and i are illogical.

dhw: I did not say they weren’t humanizing. I merely reminded you of your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns similar to ours, so that is no reason to reject a logical explanation of his actions. I have no objection to the logical arguments you say Adler puts forward for the uniqueness of humans and for the existence of God. What is illogical in your theory – the bit which you always try to dodge and which you tell us Adler does not deal with – is the claim that an all-powerful God has only one purpose, to create H. sapiens, but spends 3.X billion years specially designing millions of now extinct non-human life forms before then specially designing all our ancestors before finally specially designing us.

The bold was God's choice. You object while admitting God, if He exists, ran evolution.

Transferred from “brain expansion”:
dhw: Now I seem to stand alone in suggesting that he knew exactly what he wanted and did it!

DAVID: I love it! I fully agree with the bold!!! And He is quite all-powerful. After all, He started the universe, evolved it to create a massive Milky Way which then, under His guidance produced an Earth perfect for life, which He then invented, warts and all!!! Fuss over the warts. He is still God. Look what He has produced. But no, all you look for are the negatives, which allow you to deny Him. There are so many positives which 'prove His existence beyond a reasonable doubt' (Adler).

dhw: What is “quite” all-powerful? Again you dodge the implications of your own guesses, and especially the “warts”. I have never “denied” God. I present the case for and against in order to explain my agnosticism. And our disagreement has nothing to do with the existence of God but concerns only your illogical theories concerning his possible nature, purpose and methods. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: The 'implications of my thinking are based on Adler's discussions of God's creation of us. I'm only dodging your illogical approaches to a God you constantly humanize.

dhw: See above for your clinging to Adler as a way of dodging the illogicality of your theory and for your “humanizing” dodge. You are currently telling us about his errors, his not knowing all the consequences of his actions, and his lack of control.

You know God knew of His problems with biological processes. He built-in the safeguards He could.

dhw: Apparently you regard this as less human and more purposeful than the hypothesis I present of a God who knows exactly what he wants and produces it.

I've said before your bolded phrase is exactly my thought. But your God experiments and enjoys spectacle. That is a humanized God.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum