Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 22, 2020, 15:33 (89 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: But I suggest that if your God is all-powerful, he will do what he wants to do. You say he deliberately created the errors that lead to old people dying, but the errors that kill young people are not his fault (i.e. he didn’t want them).

Confused. The bold does not correctly recognize that the mechanism of aging leading to death is purposely builtin and may or may not be due to error

dhw; With my theist's hat on, I suggest that maybe he deliberately created all the errors, i.e. he wanted them (since death was essential to whatever might have been his purpose). The biochemistry is the same for each theory. And I find it absurd to argue that your all-powerful God could not correct some errors, but gave us the intelligence to do what he couldn’t do.

The errors you want God to correct are all unexpected accidents of molecular activity which God could never control unless He somehow created a fail-safe system. That it isn't fail-safe proves it is impossible to create.


DAVID: That still doesn't tell us His reasoning behind His purposes.

dhw: 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).

DAVID: Ridiculous comment. Feeding everyone during evolution is an obvious necessity.

dhw: Designing and feeding millions of now extinct non-human life forms is not an obvious necessity if his only intention was to design and feed humans! Stop dodging!

No dodge. Your confusion. God has the right to evolve us and feed all organisms along the way.


DAVID: There can be only one definite theory only about God's thoughts: He uses logic as we do. The rest is guesswork.

dhw: What is a “definite” theory? If he uses logic as we do, we should be able to understand it. Not even you can understand the logic of the bold above, whereas you do recognize the logic of my alternatives.

It is not an issue of understanding God's logic. We obviously cannot know His reasoning behind his choices of purpose or method of achieving them.


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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: The usual humanized version of how God thinks and develops purpose.

Fits in perfectly with your contention that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, “beyond just simple logical thought”.

DAVID: And it ends with the usual distortion of my view of God's thoughts.

dhw: Not a distortion but a direct quote, and a perfectly reasonable theory. When pressed for a possible explanation of your God’s purpose for creating H. sapiens, you even acknowledge that your God might want a relationship with us, might want us to admire his works, and might enjoy his own works as a painter enjoys his paintings.

Exactly my thoughts as pure guesswork, when responding to your request to come up with possible reasons. Guesswork is not substantive thought, and I've stated those guesses were at the level of humanizing.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum