Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 30, 2020, 18:55 (30 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: In order to avoid the endless repetitions, here is a summary of all the arguments. We regard something as logical when we can see a rational link between different premises. The premises may not be illogical in themselves (even if they are open to question). It is their combination which may be logical or illogical. Here is a list of your premises:

THEORY OF EVOLUTION: 1) your God is all-powerful and in total charge; 2) he has only one purpose for creating life: to produce H. sapiens plus food supply; 3) he directly designs millions of non-human species plus econiches for 3.X million years before beginning to directly design the only species he wants to design. It is impossible to find a rational link between the first two reasonable premises and the third.

The rational link is by accepting God is in charge. He created humans by evolving them through the process of designing each stage which we see and interpret as evolution.


dhw: BALANCE OF NATURE AND ECONICHES: 1) All life forms, including humans, require food. 2) All econiches depend on a natural balance. 3) God designed all non-human species and econiches/food supplies for 3.X billion years before designing the only species and set of econiches/food supplies he wanted to design. 4) God designed 3.X billion years’ worth of econiches/food supplies to feed H. sapiens, although he hadn’t yet started to design H. sapiens. Nobody would dream of questioning the first two premises. We have already dealt with 3). 4) adds to the illogicality of the combination.

4) is illogical only in your mind. God knew we would populate the Earth as He designed the entire bush of life for our food supply. Accepting God in charge solves hour puzzlement.


REJECTION OF MY ALTERNATIVE THEORIES;
1) DAVID: Your theories are logical only at humanized version of God.
2) DAVID: He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logical thought.
3) DAVID: I agree He probably does have some of our attributes.

dhw: In the light of 2) and 3), No. 1) offers no logical reason for rejecting my alternative theories.

2 & 3) are logical extension of considerations about how God might have human attributes in His personality. But our views of god are totally different. I view him as highly purposeful with definite goals in mind. You have Him experimenting, looking for spectacle, allowing some aspects of evolution not under His direct control despite the error problem, etc. Obviously a humanized God wondering about His own purposes.


dhw: I think the three examples cover the whole range of this particular discussion. You are of course perfectly free to stick to your beliefs, and so unless you disagree with any of the above, I suggest we close this thread.

Of course I disagree. But it is a conclusive endpoint covering our views.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum