Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Friday, July 10, 2020, 19:24 (1595 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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?

Yes, His powers cannot stop molecular errors. I know He can't stop them. The evidence being the backup systems in place.

DAVID: God has the right to choose to evolve us.

dhw: 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.

How does evolution occur from bacteria to us without evolution? Nutty objection.

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.

dhw: 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.

You've just written we cannot know His reasons for his purposes. Still inconsistent thinking.

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

dhw: 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.

Same answer: How does evolution occur from bacteria to us without evolution? The bush gives us the food supply. Where is your logical thinking?

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.

DAVID:Where?

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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.

The bold clearly states, finally, yes, He uses the same logic we do. I reject your humanizing thoughts about God's purposes: spectacle, experimenting, and others. Of course his thought patterns and ours may be similar patterns, but it doesn't make us privy to His thoughts (reasoning) that led to his decisions for his purposes.