Let's study ID (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, August 14, 2021, 06:57 (71 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I am questioning YOUR logic in your theory (NOT a fact) that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, but he spent 3.8 billion years specially designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with his one and only purpose of designing humans and their food.

DAVID: What is totally illogical is your constant complaint: I put God in charge and look at the current result and Adler's analysis. You wander off and invent other reasons why God might have evolved us. I accept your reasons if one considers a very humanized God, unsure of Himself, experimenting, enjoying a free-f-or-all, and especially non-purposeful.

dhw: And so yet again you try to dodge the illogical premises bolded above. My alternative theistic theories all explain why there have been so many life forms that have no connection with us. None of them suggest a God without a purpose or even a God who is unsure of himself, but in any case these distorted versions of my alternative theories do not provide an explanation for the sheer illogicality of the bolded theory , which is why you continue to dodge.

DAVID: Your wandering God theories only fits a very humanized version of God. As usual, you have forgotten we all eat. Without the huge bush humans would be starving. Your narrow vision of facts is confusing you.

You are determined to flit from one discredited dodge to another rather than face up to the illogicality of the bolded theory. All our theories “humanize” God, and that fits in with your repeated acknowledgement that he probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and you are “sure we mimic Him in many ways.” The huge bush of past foods has no connection with the present huge bush of foods, as you have acknowledged repeatedly: “The current bush of foods is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “extinct life has no role in present time”. Please stop trotting out these silly, discredited irrelevancies, as if they somehow justify the illogicality of your theory bolded above.:-(

DAVID: My view of God is totally different and we cannot narrow the gap. My God is logical for me. I cannot reply to your imagination which runs wild as you try to imagine all sorts of Gods.

dhw: How can your version of your God’s evolution be logical for you if you can’t explain why he would specially design countless life forms that have no connection with humans and their food, although his one and only purpose was to design humans and their food? What is “wild” about a God who experiments, or who has new ideas as he goes along, or who creates a free-for-all because he wants to create a free-for-all, or who watches his creation with interest and therefore may have designed his creation because he wanted something he could watch with interest?

DAVID: Once again you have created an image of very humanized God.

Who is different from your humanized God. Dealt with above and at least a hundred times before that.

DAVID: I've shown you God evolves His results. Do you deny that? Why He evolves instead of direct creations is His choice which I accept. I don't need His reasoning, only you do for your own strange logic.

According to you, evolution means that your God directly creates every species. And according to you, he evolved (directly created) every single one of them for the sole purpose of evolving (directly creating) humans and their food, although the vast majority had no connection with humans and their food. Please explain why you consider this logical.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum