Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 16, 2021, 16:15 (237 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Thursday, December 16, 2021, 16:22


DAVID: My God had to have this system of life as the only one that will work at the speeds necessary.

dhw: There you are: he “had to”. Your all-powerful, all-knowing God was compelled by conditions of his own making to create a system with errors which he did not want, and tried – often unsuccessfully – to correct.

Don't you understand the phrase: "the only one that will work" implies that is all there is to pick from. Nothing else will work. God was not stuck. He arrived at the only correct answer to the question of 'how do I create life'. And there is plenty of evidence He recognize the warts in the designed editing systems all over the place. Open your completely closed mind. All presented before, copiously.

DAVID: So, yes, this is what He wanted. But not from the weak humanized God you always imply. I repeat, we see very different Gods in characterizing God's personality.

dhw: It is you who make him weak! I propose that his powers (if he exists) are unlimited, and the system with its capacity for all life forms from molecules upwards to do their own thing was what he WANTED to create, and not what he “had to” create.

Invent the God you need to avoid a belief in God. Yours is illogically very human, not God-like

DAVID: Why should He be at all like any human you know?

dhw: […] I find it totally logical that if God exists as first cause, whatever he creates will reflect some aspect of himself, since it never existed until he thought of it. Do you really think your God has no idea what it means to love, hate, enjoy, be bored, be sad, be happy? Are we that much more advanced than he is? If he exists.

DAVID: We see very different Gods. Of course He knows all of our emotions.

dhw: Then we see the same God, since if he exists, according to you only he could have created them!

He created us so we could have emotions, al of them.

DAVID: Since God is so powerful, our mimicking can only be in a small degree.

dhw: Yes, yes, we are minuscule compared to his almightiness. But that still leaves plenty of room for him to want a free-for-all, or to experiment, or to have new ideas as he goes along, and above all in the context of our discussion, it leaves plenty of room for him to act logically and, if he has a single purpose, to fulfil it without all the diversions you impose on him (i.e. God’s only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food, and therefore he designed the brontosaurus and the weaverbird’s nest, neither of which had/has any connection to humans.)

Evolution required past stages, past ecosystems as part of God's choice of method of creation. Without ecosystems for food we wouldn't be here. Your constantly repeated illogical negative mantra fills space and reminds me of Joe Goebel's belief. Repeating a lie often enough becomes the truth. Adler used the appearance of humans as a proof of God. Are you afraid of read his opinions as developed? No, you must protect your rigidity. And don't complain to me you can't. I was agnostic like you until with open mind I started reading in my 50's. In the other thread you have shown you have no idea of ID's philosophic approach to purposely not using any sniff of religion or God in how they present design as a sole argument.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum