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

by David Turell @, Friday, December 17, 2021, 16:00 (34 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Friday, December 17, 2021, 16:12

PART TWO

DAVID: 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.

dhw: I understand it. I just don’t believe that an all-powerful God is incapable of designing a system that doesn’t make errors, or that he is incapable of correcting some of the errors. And I propose that the system he designed was the system he WANTED to design.

Once again, you do not accept the limitation in life's system design.


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

dhw: How can a theory about an all-powerful God who knows exactly what he wants and proceeds to design it be an attempt to avoid a belief in God? Why is it more human for your God to design exactly what he wanted to design than for him to try – sometimes in vain – to correct the errors he could not avoid in the system he had designed?

My concept of your humanized God is very weakly answered by trying to make my God human. You can't read my mind as to how I view Him. I tell you and you purposely misinterpret.

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!

DAVID: He created us so we could have emotions, all of them.

dhw; So how does that come to mean we don’t have thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to his?

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

DAVID: Your constantly repeated illogical negative mantra fills space and reminds me of Joe Goebel's belief. Repeating a lie often enough becomes the truth.

dhw: I'm sorry but there are no lies here. Your mantra is the illogical premise I have questioned in bold and for which you admit you can find no logical explanation. I have proposed alternative scenarios which you agree are logical. There is no “lying”.

Again your fully distorted 'no logical explanation' meaningless response. I cannot know why God chose to evolve all of reality, as history tells us. Stop dodging.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: have a thousand times accepted the logic of your argument and Adler’s that humans (and indeed all other life forms) are so complex that they must have been designed, and design requires a designer. I have other reasons for my agnosticism, but you know perfectly well that in our discussions on evolution I am, for the sake of argument, speculating on your God’s motives and methods, not in his existence! So please stop dodging!

DAVID: […] 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.

dhw: See the other thread for your usual avoidance of the question I asked.

The other thread explains how ID works, since you have limited your reading to areas that support your agnosticism. If you accept the design argument, why/how can you possibly have other reasons for disbelief? A 'required designer' MUST, therefore, exist.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum