Clever Corvids: the cortical equivalent in many birds (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, October 01, 2020, 11:30 (1302 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: [..] please tell us how the history shows that (a) your God directly designed them all, and (b) that his sole purpose in designing them was to design H. sapiens, and (c) why God could not have designed H. sapiens without designing dinosaurs and dodos first.[…]

DAVID: I assume God, as creator, formed history. Therefore I don't dodge. You refuse accept it.

dhw: I also assume that if God exists he formed history. But the only history we know is the great bush of life. Why and how God produced it is not history but interpretation. If you don’t dodge, then please tell us why your all-powerful God directly designed the dinosaur and the dodo although his only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food supply.

DAVID: Round and round. That God chose to evolve us from bacteria is no dodge. Each stage purposeful.

Please tell us in what way your God’s design of the dinosaur and the dodo (plus a few million other dead life forms) provided a stage in the design of H. sapiens.

DAVID: […] God thinks as we do. His reasoning is guided by His precise purposes. His choice of creation methods follows his reasoning which we cannot know but about which can make guesses.

dhw: […] The illogicality of your approach is all too clear from this latest comment of yours. How can you possibly know that God thinks as we do if you cannot follow his reasoning?

DAVID: Choosing to evolve us requires exactly what you question. Thinking with a mind is teh saem for all who can think, including God.

Ah, so when you say he thinks as we do, all you mean is that he has got a mind. Got it! Unfortunately, that doesn’t help us to find a reason why he would directly design the dinosaur and the dodo when all he wanted to design was us.

dhw: You make guesses and I make guesses, and you acknowledge that all of mine are logical but you “deal in absolutes” and I deal in “possibilities”. Since we cannot know his reasoning and can only guess, how can we deal in absolutes and not in possibilities?

DAVID: I reach definite opinions. Yours are in all directions of possibilities.

dhw: Correct. You admit that we cannot know your God’s reasons, but you have a definite opinion and deal in absolutes. […] You know how God thinks, although you don't know his reasoning.

DAVID: No one can know God's exact thoughts. We both interpret the results of God's actions very differently.

But you reach definite decisions and talk of absolutes, even though you can’t find ANY logical reasons why he would have applied your choice of his method to fulfil your choice of his purpose. Furthermore, you reject my alternative possibilities, even though you can understand their logic. I know of atheists whose approach to these subjects is very similar to yours. They reach a definite decision concerning God’s existence and refuse to listen to your cogent and logical arguments- for design. Can you think of a word that describes this approach?