Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, July 11, 2020, 11:24 (1594 days ago) @ David Turell

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?

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

If his powers cannot stop something, his powers are limited. Once more: what is your objection to the proposal that he wanted the errors?

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.

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

Stop dodging! You believe your all-powerful God directly created every life form. If he only wanted to directly create one life form with food supply, why did he spend 3.X billion years directly creating millions and millions of extinct non-human life forms and food supplies? You have “no idea”, apart from all of them being food supplies for humans who hadn’t yet arrived. A more appropriate question to you would be why you don’t just settle for Genesis: God directly created all the life forms that humans were to have dominion over, and then he directly created sapiens? Just forget about bacteria, and carry on pretending that the 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct, non-human life forms never existed; and forget about "evolution", which is what you also try to do when you insist on direct design.

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.

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

What are “reasons for purposes”? The purpose is the reason for the action. The action was the creation of life and its development by evolution. According to you the sole reason or purpose for God’s action was to create H. sapiens, and the reason or purpose for his creation of all the life forms etc. that preceded H. sapiens was to provide sapiens with food even though he wasn’t there. How logical is that?

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

See what I mean? 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct food supply for us, even though we didn’t exist. Just stick to Genesis and carry on pretending that your God didn’t spend 3.X billion years specially designing food supplies for all the extinct non-humans.

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.

DAVID: 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.

We can’t know anything for certain, but if he uses the same logic as we do, and his thought patterns may be similar to ours, then you have no reason for rejecting “humanizing” theories other than the fact that we can’t know whether they are true or not. In that case, please reject your own theory, since you can’t know whether it is true or not.