Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, July 25, 2020, 10:42 (14 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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:As usual totally illogical: God is eternal. Time is of no matter to Him, but it is to your humanizing mind about Him. Accept that God chose to evolve us, as history shows. And later: why should an eternal God care about the time it took???!!!

If God exists, I accept that he chose to evolve us and that time is irrelevant. What I do not accept is (a) your version of evolution, which is synonymous with direct design, and (b) that if his one and only purpose was to directly design us, he would first have directly designed billions of now extinct non-human life forms, econiches, natural wonders, lifestyles, strategies. It is (b) that defies all logic, which is why you continually try to dodge the issue.

dhw: 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: All stated as guesses. Why don't you quote that!! Only logical thought is a definite.

All our theories are “guesses”, but if your guess is the same as mine, why do you continually try to ignore it? You guess that his thoughts are similar to ours, and then you reject theories based on the same guess as your own. Nothing is “definite”, but again we both agree that God’s logic is likely to be similar to our own. That is why the fact that you have no idea why he would have chosen your theoretical method of fulfilling your theoretical purpose contradicts your belief that his logic is similar to ours. Whereas on the contrary, you accept that my different alternatives DO demonstrate a logic similar to ours. And illogically you then reject them BECAUSE they show a logic similar to ours!


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum