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

by dhw, Sunday, November 15, 2020, 12:13 (18 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: If God exists, I am not disputing the logic behind your theory that he created all the conditions necessary for life. Our dispute begins at life itself, with the illogicality of your theory that he directly designed every extinct life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. “as part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans” although 99% of them had no connection with humans. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: Why do you dodge the point that God chose to evolve us as His method of creation? Your weird objection to my approach is that you fault God for spending all that time evolving us. That is my belief which your illogical rejection will never shake!!!

Why do you dodge the point that if your God exists he chose to evolve (by which you mean directly design) every species that ever lived, 99% of which had no connection with humans, although according to you humans were his only goal? For the umpteenth time, I am not faulting God! I am pointing out the utter illogicality of your theory that his goal was to create humans and so he spent “all that time” creating life forms that had nothing to do with humans.

DAVID: His goal was not to directly design humans. That is your constant unreasonable misinterpretation of my belief. That was his ultimate goal!!!

What is the difference between his goal and his ultimate goal? According to you, he directly designed every species that ever lived “as part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans”. Back to our example: Why did he directly design the brontosaurus, which had no direct connection to humans, if his (ultimate) goal was to directly design humans? Please don’t tell us that the brontosaurus was necessary as part of the food supply for humans who didn’t even exist at the time.

dhw: I criticize your theory because it is illogical. You acknowledge the logic of my theory - theistic version: God invented cellular intelligence to allow organisms to design their own modes of survival in response to changing conditions – but you criticize it because it “humanizes” your God, although you agree that he probably has thought patterns, emotions and other attributes similar to our own!

DAVID: Can't I convince you my belief will remain logical to me, even if you constantly reject it is your own mixed up thoughts about God. Your concept of god has never matched mine.

I keep asking you to explain the logic behind your belief that your God’s (ultimate) goal was to design humans and their food supply, and so he designed millions of non-human life forms and food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans. You have said that you have no idea why he chose to evolve (= directly design) humans in this way, and so I don’t know how you can claim that you find it logical. I offer you different theories, all of which you agree are logical but which you reject on the grounds that they “humanize” your God, although you believe he probably has thought patterns, emotions and other attributes similar to ours and “very well could think like us”. However, you are quite right that my own thoughts about your God (and his existence) are mixed up, in so far as I can find several different and perfectly logical explanations of life and evolution and am unable to choose between them.

Thank you for clarifying what you meant by “dhw confusion” on the other thread. We can close that one now.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum