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

by dhw, Sunday, January 02, 2022, 11:25 (1054 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

DAVID: You think I dodge because you won't think though my logic using my belief in a God you do not accept, but invent your very weak, humanizing form of God, in my opinion.

dhw: Forget my strong form of God (see “Cellular intelligence”) and focus on your “logic”: please give us one logical reason why an all-powerful God with one purpose (to design sapiens plus food) would specially design countless extinct life forms that had no connection with humans plus our food.

DAVID: As in other threads, an all-powerful God has the right to chose His method of creation to fit His purposes. As you question God's existence, you question His right to choose.

I do not. I question your right to restrict him to your own subjective view of his purpose and your own subjective view of how he set about achieving that purpose. I note, however, that once more you have used the plural. I look forward to your response to my request under “Cellular intelligence” for more details about these “purposes”.

DAVID: In religious circles your weak God would not be recognized, using Adler as a example.

I do not regard any of my proposed versions of God as being “weak”. And I suggest to you that quite apart from Deism, which you conveniently forgot about, there are religious “circles” which believe in multiple gods with all kinds of characteristics, and in any case, I had no idea that you were such a fan of religion. I have always kept in mind the wonderful dedication you wrote at the beginning of your first book, and it is well worth quoting here:

“Organized religion and patterns of belief are too often developed from the conceits of humans, who presume to know very exactly God’s intentions and very exactly the meanings of all the teachings in the Bible, and press others to accept their interpretations. True religion comes from within the individual, added (should this have been “aided”) by study from without.”

This was published before Dawkins’ The God Delusion, and for any followers of this website, I am going to balance my attacks on the rigid beliefs you express in this forum by saying that I not only had the privilege of editing your second book (The Atheist Delusion) but would wholeheartedly recommend it. In both your books, you steer clear of identifying with particular religions and of most of the contentious subjects we are discussing here, and wisely focus on the scientific evidence for design. Even though I remain firmly seated on my agnostic fence, these books are an education in themselves.