Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, August 31, 2020, 12:49 (1543 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: 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.

If God exists, then of course he is in charge, in the sense that he decides what he wants and how to get what he wants. That does not mean he only wants to design H. sapiens plus food supply and therefore designs every preceding and now extinct non-human species, econiche, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc. in life’s history, and does so as “part of the goal of evolving humans”. There is no rational link between these premises. So let us just accept that nevertheless you believe in this theory, and we can leave it at that.

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.

DAVID: 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.

How can the ENTIRE bush of life (covering 3.8 billion years), 99% of which has now disappeared, supply us with our food? See above for “in charge”. Let us just accept that you believe dinosaurs are on the menu, and leave it at that.

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.

The error problem specifies LACK of control! And over and over again I have confirmed that I view your God as highly purposeful with definite goals in mind. Experimenting explains life’s history as he seeks to fulfil the goal of producing a being like himself. You harp on about purpose, but for the most part chicken out of speculating what that purpose might be! Looking for spectacle has him seeking to fill the great void of his own existence, and when I have pushed you to explain his possible purpose(s), you have come up with such theories as God enjoying his own creations like a painter enjoying his paintings, or wanting his own work to be admired, or wanting a relationship with us. So please stop pretending that my alternatives involve a God with no purpose, stop complaining about humanization of a God who probably has human thought patterns and other attributes, stick to your belief in your illogical combination of purpose and method, and leave it at that.