Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition; A new answer (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, November 16, 2021, 15:21 (1103 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The bush consisted and consists of countless branches, and the vast majority of these have not only become extinct, but also had no connection with humans. You have acknowledged this (humans are not descended from brontosauruses), and so I question your belief that every single one of them was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food.

I consider God's designed evolution as an all inclusive process.

DAVID: Again you are simply criticizing God's choice of method. How do you know God could or wished to create us directly?

dhw: I don’t “know” anything – even if God exists! I am not criticizing God’s choice of anything, since we can’t know it! I am criticizing the illogicality of your interpretation of your God’s purpose and method, but I offer different theistic evolutionary theories which you keep agreeing all fit logically with life’s history. How do you know that your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, and how do you know that he designed every single life form, lifestyle and natural wonder, including all those that had no connection with humans and their food? How do you know which human thought patterns and emotions he might have?

The questions concern my process in changing from an agnostic. My research concluded God exists and created all of our reality. You are questioning my conclusions. All of my statements about God's thoughts, emotions to reach His actions are guesses. However His actions are real Works and open for interpretation

DAVID: Your constant complaint is God's actions in evolution are illogical to you. You are comparing your human logic to God's logic and finding fault with His.

dhw: Wrong. I am finding fault with your logic.

DAVID: Which I don't understand and simply view as you criticizing god.

dhw: That is because you refuse to acknowledge that your theory is based on interpretation and not fact.

No, it is my interpretation of the facts

DAVID: My only interpretation of God's history is to follow Adler's approach, that we are so unusual a result from evolution, we must have been intended to appear by God. And in that way our appearance is a proof of God, since we cannot be the result of a natural process.

dhw: The subject is not God’s existence, but if he exists, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that whatever happened was his intention. You tell us that Adler does not cover your theory of evolution as bolded above, so I don’t know why you keep bringing him into your defence of it.

DAVID: Adler's view is fully known to you. Human uniqueness shows God's purpose and is a proof of God.

dhw: But you have repeatedly told us that he does not discuss your theory that humans were God’s ONLY purpose and that God designed every single life form, lifestyle and natural wonder as part of his one and only goal – to produce humans and their food – although the vast majority of them had no connection with humans and their food! Even if he did, it would not make such a theory any more logical!

I'll stick with Adler's logic

dhw: It is only your interpretation of his purpose and methods that leaves you floundering, as you have no idea why he would have chosen it. And yet you still insist that you know your God’s mind, and your illogical theory is HIS logic!

DAVID: I'm not floundering in a position of believing God, the Creator, creates what He wants when He wants in the method He wants.

dhw: If God exists, I doubt if anyone would disagree with that. You simply omit the fact that there are alternative theories concerning what, when and how, and your theory is so illogical that you have no idea why he would have chosen it.

Strawman inaccurate statement of my constant position. I obviously cannot know God's reasons for His choice of creation method. Distortion is a poor response argument. Your alternative theories come from a very humanized form of God.