Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, July 24, 2020, 11:25 (15 days ago) @ David Turell

The discussion on God’s errors continues on that thread.

DAVID: No dodge. Your confusion. bbGod has the right to evolve usbb and feed all organisms along the way.

dhw: Your God has the right to do whatever he wants to do. How does that explain the theory that he only wanted to “evolve” (= directly design) us, but spent 3.X billion years “evolving” (= specially designing) anything but us? Stop dodging.

DAVID: You are the consummate dodger. The bolds above show it. God has the expressed right to evolve us over time. We are the endpoint of his works with our huge brain and consciousness. It is obvious and you refuse to back down from an untenable position.

I have no problem with the logic of the argument that our huge brain and consciousness may mark the “endpoint” of evolution in the sense that it seems highly unlikely that any new species will exceed our level of consciousness. The problem which yet again you have dodged is why, if your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose right from the beginning was to design H. sapiens, he spent 3.X billion years specially designing billions of now extinct non-human life forms, econiches, natural wonders, lifestyles, strategies. Your only answer, apart from telling us that we can’t read God’s mind, is that they were all necessary to provide food for the humans who were not yet there. This defies all logic. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: 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: No, we cannot “know” any of this, including whether God actually exists. But how can you say he definitely uses logic as we do if you can’t explain what you insist are his choice of purpose and method?

DAVID: I can only see his methods from history and reality. I can only guess at his reasons. Your 'reasons' always humanize His purposes.

I suppose I shall have to repeat your immortal words: “He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logical thought.” Another quote I noted from a discussion at around the same time was: “I agree He probably does have some of our attributes.

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.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: Why are my guesses less “substantive” than your guess, which defies all human logic? There is nothing wrong with “humanizing”, as you quite rightly pointed out in the statement which I keep quoting and which you keep trying to forget.

DAVID: Of course He may have human purposes. Your guesses are all humanizing and mine try to picture Him as full of direct purpose, without any self interest. Different approaches.

Why do you differentiate between human purposes and “direct” purpose? All the purposes I have proposed are “direct”, as are those you have reluctantly offered yourself. The only difference in our approach is that I have linked each purpose to the history of life in what you agree is a logical manner, whereas your theory is so illogical that you have no idea why your all-powerful God would have spent 3.X billion years not designing the only species (plus food supply) that he wanted to design.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum