More "miscellany" (General)

by David Turell @, Friday, October 29, 2021, 16:31 (29 days ago) @ dhw

Chimps /'r’/ not us

dhw: Apparently, then, the correct interpretation is that your God’s one and only goal was to create humans plus food, so he created every form of life and food extant and extinct, most of which had no connection with humans. But amazingly, according to you, “We can only know God’s logic is like ours.” I reckon he’d be as flabbergasted as I am!

DAVID: God is not as flabbergasted as you are. God's history tells us He created us by a designed process that mimics Darwin's common descent evolution, including all of your so-called objections to His creation. God looks at you and is flabbergasted.

dhw: Why “mimics”? If he took existing organisms and added new bits and pieces, we still have common descent. It’s only when you switch to species without precursors that you abandon common descent, which creates the gross contradiction discussed under “Giraffe plumbing”. And of course you continue to dodge the question of why he designed all those life forms that had no connection with humans if…etc. etc.

I have said what God designed mimics Darwin's common descent. And it does. God started with very simple one-celled animals containing a menagerie of biochemical processes all acting in concert creating their living state. From that point He designed more complex phenotypes and on occasion jumped ahead in form type creating Darwin's and Gould's gaps. I'm sorry you are stuck in Darwin quicksand theory.


Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
dhw: Same old tired dodge of pretending that my criticism of your illogical theories is an attack on God.

DAVID: Your illogical complaint comes from your skewed view of who God is. Your God and mine, if they met, would not recognize each other.

dhw: My own varied views of what God might be like, if he exists, have absolutely nothing to do with the sheer illogicality of your belief that he is all-powerful but...see the bolds above. And if I point out the illogicality of this belief, you accuse me of criticizing God, as if somehow your illogical theory has become fact.

DAVID: A non-answer to the point as usual: The God you imagine is not at all like mine, so we talk past each other. That what I believe is illogical to you makes the point. The God I recognize is totally logical to me. Remember your God is really very human to me, and you try to foolishly defend your guy by trying to make mine human, which He is not! Humanlike analogues do not transform Him.

dhw: It remains illogical for your God to have one purpose and to spend 3.x billion years specially designing life forms that had no connection with his one purpose. You can’t explain it, so please stop pretending you find it logical. According to you, your God probably/possibly has thought patterns etc and logic like ours, and you are sure we mimic him in certain ways. There is no “foolish defence” – why is a God who creates a free-for-all, or experiments, or gets new ideas more “human” than a God who only wants to do good, can’t control his design but tries hard – sometimes in vain – to correct the errors, and wishes he hadn’t had to design a system that caused suffering (the mistakes)? And finally, to get back to the point which you have ignored, why do you insist that my criticisms of your illogical theories are an attack on God, when you know that they are an attack on your illogical theories?

My view of God's personality makes my theories entirely logical. Your view of God seriously humanizes His supposed thoughts invented by you. We start with diametrically opposed God images/personalities. Of course we won't agree. My explanation which satisfies me is God did exactly what He wanted and needed to do. I accept God's history as proof.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum