Let's study ID (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, August 23, 2021, 13:09 (61 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I don't dodge like you do. Your repeated mantra objection above is completely illogical, and is totally based on your very humanized God as the only one you can accept. God created the appearance of common descent by making/designing each new stage from the previous.

dhw: How does my very humanized God or your God’s design of every new stage of every life form that ever existed explain why, if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food, he designed every stage of every life form that had no connection with humans and their food? Please stop dodging. I would ask you to explain the logic, but you have already admitted repeatedly that you can’t – though then you go on to tell me that the theory is perfectly logical.

DAVID: Perfectly logical if you accept God has the right to create everything by any method He wishes, and you have accepted that premise.

Of course he has the right. I am only questioning the logic of the goal and method you impose on him.

DAVID: Just accept that God creates by evolving, as I have shown, the universe from the BB, the Earth from its appearance, life from its origin. All reflected in known history.

No problem so far, assuming God exists.

DAVID: It is then perfectly logical to accept that God wanted us to appear and did it starting with bacteria.

But it is perfectly logical that if God designed every species, he wanted EVERY species to appear and did it starting with bacteria. What is not logical is that he only wanted humans plus their food to appear, and therefore designed lot of species and food that had no connection with humans and their food. STOP DODGING!

DAVID: Your objection is an entirely human objection, which fully implies if He wanted something why not directly do it? I've constantly made this same point over the years of our discussion.

No, this is the point which I have constantly made and which you constantly try to dodge. Last time you wanted to draw a parallel with humans and our goals, and I did so. All I want to do is write a book about agnosticism, and so first of all I write 20 books about gardening. You have skipped over the parallel you wanted to draw. Why? Because of course it illustrates precisely the same illogicality as your theory of evolution. So please stop dodging.

DAVID: Your same totally human complaint about my view of God, which can never be like your view of a human-level-reasoning God. When will you realize God doesn't reason as you do?

When will you realize that maybe God does not reason as you do, since your own interpretation of his reasoning makes no sense even to you! (You have no idea why he would have chosen to design all the life forms etc. that had no connection with humans and their food. So maybe he didn't design them. Or maybe he did, but their purpose was not to enable him to design us.)

DAVID: I don't dodge your unacceptable illogical thoughts about God in the way you attempt to imply. I wish you could see your God as I see Him, but you resent my previous descriptions of Him, although I view them as an honest set of conclusions based on the ways you have Him act.

Your descriptions of him are preconceptions (always in control, all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing) and your insistence that humans were his one and only purpose for creating life is inconsistent with your belief that he proceeded to create millions of life forms etc. that had no connection with humans. Your conclusions are therefore based on the ways YOU have him act, and you are then forced to tell us that God doesn’t reason as we humans do – apart from one dear friend of mine, who firmly believes that his view of God’s reasoning is incomprehensibly illogical but we must accept it.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum