Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, July 21, 2020, 12:33 (18 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God cannot prevent molecular mistakes

dhw: You offer us an all-powerful God with a helpless inability to control his own invention, although amazingly we smart human beings are able to correct some of the mistakes he could not avoid. And once again, I don’t see how millions of mistaken premature deaths from the same diseases that kill old people can be called good planning.

DAVID: He invented living organisms, but cannot stop molecular mistakes. Accept it.

As usual, I will put on my theist hat for the sake of this discussion. Why should I accept your theory that your at times all-powerful, all-knowing, always-in-control God is so incompetent that he invents a system which includes mistakes he can’t control, whereas we humans are smart enough to correct some of them! And why should I accept that millions of mistaken deaths are a sign of good planning? (NB This is not a criticism of God, but of your interpretation of God’s powers and wishes.)

dhw: Your “humanizing” objection to my logical alternatives is invalidated by your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns similar to ours...

DAVID: In use of logic only!! We do not know His reasons for his purposes. Still distorting!!

dhw: At this point I quoted your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours and “beyond just simple logical thought”. I can understand your reluctance to continue the discussion on “humanizing”, and to switch to wordplay. Perhaps you will also understand that I should not be accused of distortion when I quote your own words.

DAVID: That still doesn't tell us His reasoning behind His purposes.
DAVID: To arrive at purpose one must think through all the reasons for choosing that purpose. you are trying to skip a mental step in wordplay of your own.

So you offer us a theory: Your God’s purpose was to design H. sapiens (God hasn’t told us the reason why), and his purpose for designing all the extinct non-human life forms, econiches etc. was to feed H. sapiens, who had not yet arrived (God hasn’t told us the reason and you have no idea why he thought he needed to feed all the extinct non-human forms before he directly designed H. sapiens). You dismiss other theories which give logical reasons for the whole history, including all the non-human forms and econiches, because they humanize your God, although you agree that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours but apparently this is a distortion of your statement that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

dhw: You have several times said that you have “no idea”. That is an agreement that you find your own theory illogical. (David’s bold)

DAVID: The bold is total distortion of my prior statements that I don't try to guess at His reasons, and I use history to tell what He did, since I view Him as in charge.

If God exists, then of course the history tells us what he did. But history does not tell us the purposes you attribute to him, and you have told us that you have no idea why he would have chosen to “evolve” H. sapiens (= specially design in your vocabulary) by first evolving (= specially designing) billions of now extinct non-human life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc.

dhw: However, if your God had other goals or secondary purposes, we might be able to find a more logical explanation of evolution, so please tell us what you think the other or secondary purposes might have been.

DAVID: All I can do is look at history and the extraordinary result of conscious humans. I'll ask you, are there other purposes? I don't know of any serious ones.

If you can’t think of any other purposes, then please stop pretending that I distort your opinions, and please stop substituting “a” purpose or a “prime purpose” or “endpoint” for THE purpose. How do you define “serious” ones? I have offered you several logical explanations of the history: experimenting, getting new ideas as history progresses, designing for his own enjoyment, designing to relieve the boredom of eternal isolation – all of these in keeping with your own extremely serious observation that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum