Let's study ID (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Monday, August 09, 2021, 14:52 (364 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You ignore the obvious. I accept what God has done. I don't need to know why He chose the obvious methods He used. I repeat, it is your problem.

dhw: You “accept” your own belief that your God individually designed every life form that ever existed, whereas it is perfectly possible that he invented a mechanism which enabled life forms to do their own designing. You “accept” your own belief that your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, although it is perfectly possible that he had other purposes in mind. You “accept” your own belief that your God is all-powerful and is incapable of conducting experiments, or getting new ideas, or designing things just for the pleasure of creation. Please don’t pretend that what you “accept” is the objective truth about your God’s purpose and method. It is not. You only accept your own beliefs.

You are correct. All your imagined versions of God do not fit mine. I find yours quite unreasonable. Designing requires a brilliant mind. What other purposes does your God have? My God, as creator, doesn't need experimentation. He knows exactly what He wants

Haldane’s dilemma
DAVID: One new stage dependent upon the past stage is pure connectivity.

dhw: 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: One stage led to the next.

Yes, on all branches of life, including all those that had no connection with humans, so it is absurd to argue that all stages of all life forms were specially designed as “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” and their food. 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.

dhw: […] You reject all my logical alternative proposals and insist that only your inexplicable theory can possibly be correct.

DAVID: We don't know which theory is correct……

dhw: Then please stop pretending that your theory is the only possible truth.

DAVID:…but I see a very purposeful God whose results of creation can be explained by a God who knows exactly what He is doing compared to your bumbling character.

dhw: All my theories present God as purposeful, and I have no idea why you sarcastically dismiss as “bumbling” a God who wants and deliberately creates a free-for-all, or a God who experiments, or who – like any creative artist – gets new ideas as he goes along. Please stick to the fact that you do not know which theory is correct, stop pretending that your own theory is the only truth, and stop imposing your preconceptions on my alternatives. Then we can end this discussion.

I have my logical truths and you have your imagination. Of courses we won't agree and can stop this discussion.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum