David's theory of evolution: God's error corrections II (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, October 08, 2020, 13:05 (1505 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: what IS illogical is the claim that an all-powerful God whose one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens, and who “could have created humans directly” but didn’t, must have designed the rest as “part of the goal of evolving [=directly designing] humans”, and supplying food for humans, although humans didn’t appear until [...] after 99% of his designs had disappeared. Once more: it is the COMBINATION of your premises that makes your theory illogical. [Edited, as [...] contained an error!]

DAVID: Once again you look at history and then tell me it is illogical, when we both agree God creates history.

History is not illogical! It is the above combination of premises that is illogical.

DAVID: What we see is the mechanism God chose to create humans. We happen to be here. God obviously chose to create humans, and we appeared by evolution. Simple logic that you persist in muddling up, by trying to give God humanizing thoughts.

We don’t know what mechanism God chose to create ANY species! You offer two mechanisms: either a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every species, econiche, natural wonder etc. in the history of life, or direct dabbling. Every multicellular organism “appeared by evolution”, but by evolution you mean God directly designed every one, presumably preprogramming or dabbling each speciation out of an existing species. And if he directly designed them ALL, he “obviously chose” to design them ALL, and they ALL appeared by evolution. See the bold above for the rest of the premises that do not cohere.

DAVID: God is a person like no other person. I give His personality purpose and nothing more for that reason. That is a reasonable limit to imagining His person thoughts. But you blast off in all directions giving Him all sorts of imagined reasons and purposes.

You have now left your illogical theory behind in order to attack my own alternatives, all of which you acknowledge as being logical. Even if you reject my theories, that does nothing to explain the illogical combination of theories/premises I have summarized above.

DAVID: They are all part of God's pattern of evolution over 3.8 billion years. Ecosystems all have their own needs and structures. And God is always capable of designing big and little.

dhw: I agree. Nothing whatsoever to do with all of them being “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

DAVID: I disagree here.

dhw: And yet you have "no idea" why your all-powerful God chose to evolve [= directly design] humans, his one and only goal, by first evolving [= directly designing] the vast bush of extinct life “which plays no role in current time.”

DAVID: Discussed with clarity above. Adler's point and mine is we are so unusual it points to the conclusion God fully intended to create us and history says by evolution. Again you toy with the idea of direct creation in your reasoning. It didn't happen and is not at issue.

In the introduction to my first paragraph (omitted here) I accepted the logic of all your individual premises, including Adler’s, so I don’t know why you keep repeating this one. It is the logic behind the combination repeated above that you cannot provide. According to you, ALL of evolution (speciation, econiches, natural wonders, humans) is direct creation by preprogramming or by dabbling, and that is why it makes no sense for him to have directly created all the extinct life forms etc. if he only wanted to directly create one (plus food supply).

DAVID: Your take is so strange to me we will never find common ground for this discussion. No one knows just how all-powerful God might be. It is important to avoid Bible descriptions at the start. I have established for me there is a designer as a starting point and building from that view I develop a viewpoint about God, just a name for the designer.

It’s interesting to hear that you are doubtful about how all-powerful God might be. That obviously opens the door to some of my alternative explanations. But I am not using Biblical descriptions, I am not questioning the logic of your belief in a designer called God, and am merely questioning your insistence on the set of beliefs bolded at the start of this post, which do not add up to a coherent whole.