More "miscellany" (General)

by David Turell @, Monday, November 01, 2021, 14:50 (33 days ago) @ dhw

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
DAVID: My view of God's personality makes my theories entirely logical.

dhw: Do please tell us exactly what is your view of your God’s “personality”, as it seems to vary from month to month.

DAVID: I'll simply repeat my constant view of His personality: Purposeful with active goals achieved in full control. As shown by the history He created. Logical in His own way. Loving? Clearly aware of probable errors in life's system He created.

dhw: “Purposeful” agreed. Active goals? Why plural? You refuse to contemplate any goal beyond the design of humans plus food.

DAVID: I know your humanizing goals for your form of God. I view humans as His endpoint of creation.

dhw: And you are trying to replace the word “goal” with the word “endpoint”, which could simply mean that we are the last item on his creative agenda, as opposed to being his one and only goal from the very beginning – the claim which lies at the heart of one of our disputes since it clashes with your belief that he also specially designed lots and lots of extinct species that had no connection with humans.

I have replaced goal with endpoint which is a more accurate way of viewing our appearance. All of evolution produced humans in stepwise fashion from God's designs.

DAVID: Your invented absurdity clashes with your admitted 'God can chose whatever He wishes to do.'

dhw: You can’t explain the logic, and so I propose that your theory is less likely to have been what he chose than other theories which you agree make perfect sense.

I agree that only with a very humanized God that you use to create your theories can make them coherent in any way..

DAVID: Again, not recognizing we need all those forms in ecosystems for food/energy or life stops. The current human population has become predictably enormous and God's designed bush of life provides for it.

dhw: Yes, life stops if there is no food. How does that explain why he designed countless forms of life/food that had no connection with humans, if all he wanted to design was humans and their food? You never stop dodging!

It is your strawman dodge. To go from bacteria to humans required all those evolutionary steps' God wanted to evolve us in the way history shows He did.

The obstetric dilemma
dhw: Not on their own. There would have to be a process of change and response to change. The cell communities involved in the pelvis would have to respond to the changes in the baby, which in turn would have been inherited from changes in the adults. No doubt there would have been many problems and deaths before the new pelvis was fully established, but I must confess I find this process more convincing than that of the first ever cells being given a programme for pelvis restructuring, along with every other evolutionary development, or your God popping in to perform operations on a group of pregnant females after having fiddled around with all the different fathers’ sperms.

DAVID: You continue to deny design while obvious design keeps you agnostic. Conflicted, I would say.

dhw: You simply cannot grasp the fact that cellular intelligence is a theory of design, and it does not exclude your God as the possible designer of the intelligent cell. It simply provides an alternative to your 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every single evolutionary development and decision for the whole history of life, or your God constantly popping in to perform operations on each and every individual organism he wants to change.

I fully grasp your cellular theory to avoid God.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum