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

by David Turell , Thursday, October 08, 2020, 17:31 (1505 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw" 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.

We see evolution. That is fact. My proposal is simply that God is the creator of evolution. You find all sorts of reasons why you do not like that conclusion, based on your humanized version of a possible God. We will never solve this difference.

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.

dhw: 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.

Logical if we imagine a very human God.

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.

dhw: 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).

Same totally illogical complaint. I cannot know God's logic, nor can you. Again you want direct creation of humans, but that is not what we factually know. You are arguing with my view that God created history. He made human a final wanted goal

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.

dhw: 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.

Only for you with your invention of God's personality. You agree God can do whatever He wants in creation and then deny the logic of the facts of evolution. All the steps to create humans have to happen first!!! We know we evolved from apes. I believe God did it. I see nothing to debate in my proposal.