Let's study ID (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, August 08, 2021, 08:17 (986 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: According to you, your God chose to design all the increasingly complex stages from Archaea to every single life form that ever existed, and the vast majority of these had no connection with humans and their food, although humans and their food were his one and only purpose. You refuse to answer the bolded question, because – as you have admitted in the past – you have no idea why he would fulfil his one and only goal by designing life forms and foods that had no connection with that one and only goal.

DAVID: I cannot know why God chose to evolve everything He created. I showed He prefers to evolve all that exists. And you are twisted all out of shape because I have no answer as to God's reasons.

We both believe that all life evolved from its earliest forms. Since you believe in God, then obviously you believe that God chose evolution as his method of producing all that exists. But you also believe that his one and only purpose was to create humans and their food, and you also believe that he specially designed every single life form that ever existed. And you are twisted all out of shape because you cannot explain why, if his only purpose was to design humans and their food, he proceeded to design every other life form and food, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans. It is not “God’s reasons” that you can’t explain. It is your theory concerning God’s reasons and methods that you can’t explain.

dhw: There are different visions (a God who experiments, learns, gets new ideas, or creates a free-for-all), each of which you agree logically explains the existence of the whole bush, but does not conform to your vision of an all-powerful, all-knowing God who for some unknown reason fulfils his one and only purpose (humans plus food) by specially designing vast numbers of life forms and foods that have no connection with humans and their food.

DAVID: Yes, it all depends upon one's vision of God.

Yours leads to a theory you cannot explain, whereas you have accepted the logic of all my alternatives. This should alert you to the possibility that your illogical theory might be wrong.

Haldane’s dilemma
DAVID: dhw doesn't seem to understand all those necessary extinctions led to humans.

dhw: If your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, there would have no need for him in the first place to individually design and then kill off all the life forms that had no connection with humans. You simply go on and on dodging the logical absurdity of your theory.

DAVID: It is your illogical absurdity. God chose to evolve everything He wished to create. A simple concept which explains every question, just as your humanized God fits reality or different reasons.

Once again you have left out the logical absurdity of your combined theories: your God only wanted to evolve (= design) humans and their food, and therefore he evolved (= designed) countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans.

DAVID: One new stage dependent upon the past stage is pure connectivity.

Correct. But the stages that led to the vast majority of the extinct organisms and foods had no connection with the stages that led to humans. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: Your muddle is you admit seeing design, and deny the need for a designing mind. Design requires a designer.

dhw: The final absurdity, since every single one of the alternative theories I have proposed includes your designer. Please stop dodging and distorting.

DAVID: I've said over and over I have no idea why God made the methodology choices He made. Why is it important that you have me confirm my position again? My position is the same.

Not quite. You have no idea why your God would have made the methodology choices you insist he made (individual design of every life form) in order to fulfil what you insist was his one and only purpose (humans and their food). You reject all my logical alternative proposals and insist that only your inexplicable theory can possibly be correct.