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

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 18, 2020, 19:29 (11 days ago) @ dhw

Our Galaxy is huge” and “Stephen Talbott’s view” are now repeating the same arguments as used in this thread. I will simply extract your comments and my answers.

DAVID: If God created evolution, and we are here at its end, His goal was humans.

dhw: If, for argument’s sake, we accept the premise that your God’s goal was humans, you are left with the insoluble problem within your theory which you dodge and dodge and dodge again: if his goal was to directly design humans and their food supply, why did he directly design millions of extinct life forms and food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans? THAT is what doesn’t make sense, and that is what you dodge and dodge and dodge again.

The bold is the problem in your interpretation of my theory. God never planned a direct design. He chose to evolve over time. History shows that.

dhw: [Extinctions] also raise the question of why your God would have designed all these ecosystems and all these life forms which had no connection with humans, if all he wanted were humans.

Under my theory humans were not the only want He had. It is your total confusion about how I think. He never planned for direct creation.

DAVID: History tells us evolution occurred, and I say God did it with humans at the end. You question translates as a question, why did God evolve us over time? Ask Him.

dhw: Please don’t rephrase my question. I am asking you why you think your God directly designed all those ecosystems and life forms that had no connection with humans if his goal was to design humans.

Humans were an endpoint goal stated over and over.

dhw: There are two levels here: 1) I regard the sheer enormity and impersonality of the ever changing universe as a major hindrance to belief in a sourceless mind that created and “controls” it. This is a counter to the logic of the design theory. Hence my agnosticism.

DAVID: It is not counter to design theory: why a Big Bang, followed by amorphous plasma, which then produced matter particles? I don't accept chance. Just because the universe confuses you, don't assume chance arrival of it as we see it now.

I do not assume anything. I know and accept the logic of your design theory. But I cannot apply it to billions of stars coming and going – just as millions of life forms have come and gone – all apparently specially designed for the sake of humans. Nor can I imagine a single, sourceless conscious mind (your “within and without” God) creating, encompassing, directing and inhabiting all this vastness. That is what I meant by a counter to your design argument.

DAVID: Obviously intelligent information/instructions is at work, and the source is?

dhw: How can information be intelligent? It takes intelligence to collect and to use information.

DAVID: 'Intelligent information' is a way of saying intelligently sourced information.

dhw: That fits in nicely with the concept of the intelligent cell, the designing source of which may have been your God.

DAVID: Chance is laughable.

dhw:I have not advocated chance as the source. Not knowing the source does not preclude the existence of something, which of course is your argument when you defend your belief in God. I leave the source open, but your God is a possibility. I’m afraid I find your theory of 3.8-billion-year-old instructions for every undabbled life form, econiche, natural wonder, strategy etc. in life’s history no less laughable than chance.

DAVID: […] you can laugh at God if you wish. Chance arrival of consciousness in humans is not reasonable, just an out for agnostics and atheists.

dhw: You seem to have a blind spot. I accept the logic of the argument against chance (“no less laughable than chance” means chance is also laughable), but the preprogramming of every undabbled life form etc. – plus the theory that every one was “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans” – is your theory. It is not a fact. And I find your theory laughable. I am not laughing at God. However, your misguided attack is an understandable tactic in your constant effort to dodge the illogicality of your overall theory of evolution. I really think this post has covered all your dodges, and suggest we draw a line under it.

You have a huge blind spot. It is your dodge in totally misrepresenting beyond all recognition my theory about God and His purposes in conducting evolution. We can skip chance as a side issue.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum