Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, September 01, 2020, 08:17 (339 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Fine. We'll stop the circles. Keep ignoring Adler's argument.

I keep accepting the logic of Adler’s argument (man is special, and provides evidence of God’s existence and purpose), but you keep telling us he does not deal with your other premises, to which you can find no logical link. Please stop hiding behind Adler.

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Silly. The past evolution leads to the present in usual thought.

I wonder how many people’s “usual thought” defines evolution as the direct design of all species, econiches, natural wonders etc., and insists that every single one was “part of the goal of evolving humans”, and that 3.X billion years’ worth of food supplies were directly designed to feed H. sapiens, although he did not yet exist.

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.

DAVID: 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: 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.

DAVID: My guesses about God you just quoted were carefully couched as guesses and were offered to be polite in answering your requests for possible God feelings. Stated many times, remember? As for chickening out, you are weird!!! His purpose is the evolution of humans, again repeatedly stated.

A purposeful God must have a purpose for everything he does! Nobody can read his mind, but you use human logic to guess that his purpose for creating life was to create sapiens. What, then, was his purpose in creating sapiens? All of a sudden we mustn’t use human logic to guess, or to fit a guessed method to a guessed purpose. If you can use your human logic to provide a logical guess about purpose with no logical link to method, why can’t I use mine to provide logical guesses about linked purposes and methods? It seems we can’t close this thread yet!

For your comment on “errors”, see that thread.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum