Let's study ID (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, August 30, 2021, 11:01 (971 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I didn't impose a method on God. I think God created our known historical facts. Evolution occurred and humans appeared at the end. Conclusion: God wised to create Humans and did it by evolving them from bacteria. There is no false logic involved.

dhw: And you also have him evolving (which for you means specially designing) every other life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. in the history of life, so clearly according to the above, he must also have wished to create them as well as humans (and their food), but the vast majority of them had no connection with humans, and so the false logic is your claim that his only purpose was to create humans (and their food).

DAVID: Same dichotomy of thought. All the rest become the food that is necessary

The food that is necessary for WHAT? All life forms need food. How does that come to mean that all life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” and their food?

DAVID: […] Your inference is why didn't God just go to direct creation of us if that is all He wanted? That is you illogical humanizing objection. What He created is what He wanted to create over time.

dhw: Correct, except that you call it “illogical”. Quite clearly, if he wanted to create all the life forms that had no connection with humans and their food, then it makes no sense to claim that all he wanted to create was humans and their food. He must have wanted to create all the other life forms as well.

DAVID: Common sense at last. Of course His intent was to create all the rest. You have finally recovered from your misinterpretation of my point that humans were the desired final step. all that came before had to come before.

How can I have misinterpreted your constantly repeated belief that humans and their food were your God’s goal in creating life? If humans and their food were his one and only goal, why do you think all the life forms and foods which you say he wanted to create “had to come before”, if the vast majority of them had no connection with humans and their food? You simply cannot face the fact that it is totally illogical to claim that your God only had one purpose but wanted to create life forms and food that had no connection with his one purpose. And you know it.

dhw: Our disagreement begins with your interpretation of why he created life.

DAVID: Our disagreement starts as to whether God exists.

For the sake of argument, I am accepting the premise that God exists in order to demonstrate the illogicality of your theistic interpretation of evolution. I have also offered alternative theistic explanations, which you agree are logical.

DAVID: Try to accept that history tells us what God decided to do and how He did it. Humans appear at the final curtain in the play of reality. Perhaps my dear playwright friend can understand it in his terms.

dhw: I can. And my play would never be performed if I introduced countless characters and story lines that had nothing whatsoever to with the situation at the end. Plays have to make sense. If God exists, I suspect that his "play" would also make sense.

DAVID: Agreed, which is what the bush of life looks like, making perfect sense as food supply.

Food supply for all the life forms that had no connection with your God’s one and only purpose! Hence the countless irrelevant characters and stories that would make sheer nonsense of the play in your analogy.