A possible God's possible purpose and nature (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Saturday, July 24, 2021, 06:33 (91 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Does survival force changes that drive evolution to advance? There is no evidence, just Darwinist proposals. That is my point you leave unchallenged as pure theory.

dhw: Please tell us what is the purpose of adapting to new conditions, and improving methods of finding food and of self-protection, if it is not to improve chances of survival.

DAVID: Agreed, but doesn't answer my conjecture that survival doesn't drive evolution. Why dodge?

Evolution is the result of changes in organisms. You agree that the purpose of those changes is to improve organisms’ chances of survival. I think that for most of us, the purpose is the driving force behind any action. How the action is performed is another subject.

Venus sea sponge
dhw: Please note the emphasis on MORE plankton, and ENHANCING the chances of reproduction. You claim to believe in common descent: so why can’t you believe that earlier forms caught LESS plankton and were LESS productive?

DAVID: I implied none of your statement.

dhw: You claimed “it had to be designed all at once” – as if there were no predecessors, and this was creation “de novo”.

DAVID: Yes, I did. You want test and see what might work. Can any such survive the experimentation?

Since I believe in common descent, I see no reason to assume that the sponge’s ancestors were unable to survive before their descendants found ways of catching MORE plankton and MORE eggs. The improved version would then have taken over from the earlier version by a process known as natural selection.

DAVID: The multiple branches are all part of ecosystems that help supply food for an enormous human population.

dhw: How can all the past multiple branches and ecosystems have supplied food for the present human population? How often must I quote you? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” And “Extinct life has no role in current time.”

DAVID: All truisms. What are you proving from the quotes?

The question you can’t answer is why your God created all the past branches that had no connection with humans, and so your “truisms” show that it is sheer nonsense to claim that all the branches helped to supply food for humans.

DAVID: My theory is fully explained by stating God chose to evolve us from bacteria. Nothing is left out.

dhw: Your statement does not explain why he chose to evolve every other life form plus food from bacteria if his only goal was to evolve humans plus food.

DAVID: It is amazing you don't recognize that what I state is how evolution works!!! Same tired old illogical complaint.

dhw: It is amazing that you should think “evolution works” by God individually designing every life form and food supply that ever existed solely for the purpose of designing H. sapiens and his food supply.

DAVID: Your total non-belief in God is showing. Your theist/ non-theist balance is markedly toward atheism. I would think you would be more 50/50.

I have offered you three theistic explanations for the way “evolution works”, and you have rejected them on the grounds that they endow God with different human characteristics from those with which you endow him. Please stop pretending that your illogical theory is the only possible way in which evolution can work, and please stop pretending that three alternative theistic theories = atheism.

xxx

Theodicy: bad bacteria seen differently
Since you have chosen to ignore all the arguments in my last post, there is no point in giving your question a thread of its own.

DAVID: I am comfortable in my beliefs, arrived at very logically. Are you comfortable as an agnostic?

dhw: Your “very logical” belief leaves you with no explanation for your illogical theory of evolution, and no explanation for theodicy, beyond the fact that you are sure your God has “good intentions” though we don’t know what they might be. Being comfortable is not, I’m afraid, a guarantee of truth. I expect Dawkins is just as comfortable as you.

DAVID: Are you comfortable?

I started this website because I was uncomfortable with Dawkins’ one-sided presentation of his case against God. I am equally uncomfortable with your one-sided presentation of your case for God and, in particular, with your various fixed beliefs concerning your God’s purpose and nature, and with your totally illogical theory concerning the history of evolution. I am neither comfortable nor uncomfortable with my ever firmer conviction that I will never know the truth unless there is an afterlife and a God reveals himself.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum