Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, July 10, 2020, 08:56 (473 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: My proposal is that the “errors” in the system were exactly what he wished. If he did NOT wish for the errors, then he invented something which could not comply with his wishes, in which case his powers were limited and he was forced to invent something he did not wish for. Hence, according to you, his efforts – sometimes unsuccessful – to provide safeguards against the errors he had not wished for. You can’t have it both ways. Either he is all-powerful and created what he wished (my proposal), or his powers are limited because what he wished for was impossible (your proposal).

DAVID: It is obvious. He cannot have life's molecules avoid errors. Knowing it was not possible, He put in as many safeguards as He could. Totally logical analysis.

He invented the system. Did he want the errors or didn’t he? If he didn’t want them but could not avoid them, his powers were limited. Exit your all-powerful God. What is your objection to the proposal that he wanted them?

DAVID: Same mistaken approach. But you always forget that the huge bush gives us the food energy we need for a huge, and growing, human population.

dhw: And you seem deliberately to “forget” that life did not begin with humans, and according to you he spent 3.X billion years providing food for millions of non-human life forms, although his only purpose was to design humans. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: No dodge. God has the right to choose to evolve us.

Of course he does. But that does not explain why he chose to “evolve” (= specially design) 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human bush. Stop dodging!

dhw: You’re sure God’s logic is like ours but we can’t understand it! And yet you can understand the logic behind all the alternatives I offer to your personal theory about God’s purpose and method, and the ONLY reason you reject them is that they endow God with patterns of thought similar to ours, although you believe that he probably has patterns of thought similar to ours. Silly.

DAVID: It is your silliness. You never recognize we cannot know the reasons for His choices or purposes, but we can assume He was logical in making those decisions.

I would also assume so. That is why I dispute the section of your theory that makes him act in such a way that you have no idea why he would have done so.

DAVID: My 'no idea' is not as you always imply. I have 'no idea' why He made the choices He made. I can't know!!! History can only tell us what He did, not why. My interpretation is not your interpretation, which basically is, why wasn't God impatient? Patently humanizing.

dhw: You have no idea why he made the choices you have imposed on him! History tells us that there was a vast bush before humans arrived. The rest is your illogical guesswork.

DAVID: Repeated objection. You always imply He should not have been so patient, again humanizing.

I and you have no idea why he would have specially designed millions of extinct non-human life forms,food supplies, natural wonders etc. if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food supply. Nothing to do with patience.

dhw: Goodbye to logic. “Our logic is similar to God’s” = God has no idea either. If God exists, I reckon he would know what he wants and would do it. Hence all the logical alternatives I offer.

DAVID: Your approach to God is denial, not logic. Your 'human logical thoughts' about God are all humanizing. God knows exactly what He is doing. Your bold is totally without logical thought. Read my comment above carefully. My 'no idea' is not your 'no idea'.

dhw: Denial of what? I agree that if God exists, he knows exactly what he is doing – hence my different alternatives. Your silly “humanizing” rejection of them is dealt with above.


Where I wrote: the ONLY reason you reject them [= my alternative explanations of evolution] is that they endow God with patterns of thought similar to ours, although you believe that he probably has patterns of thought similar to ours.

DAVID: You constantly use human logic when describing His thoughts and motives.

What other logic can you or I use? You are happy to use human logic when arguing the case for design, but when it comes to your personal theory about God’s nature, purpose and method, all of a sudden God’s logic has to be different from ours although you’re sure it is similar to ours, just as you agree that he probably has thought patterns similar to ours but you reject any theory that entails him having thought patterns similar to ours.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum