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

by dhw, Wednesday, January 05, 2022, 12:53 (16 days ago) @ David Turell


This began with your complaint that my various alternative explanations of evolution and a possible God’s purposes and actions would not he recognized by “religious circles”. You swiftly changed the subject back to the subject dealt with under “Cellular intelligence”:

DAVID: […] we start with the same all-powerful God concept, but diverge from my very purposeful God who knows the exact direction in which He is headed, and compared to yours who gives up control, changes His mind, experiments, and obviously had no endpoint in mind when He started to create.

dhw: Once again I pointed out that each of my alternative explanations of the great bush was based on a very precise purpose: 1) the free-for-all, following on from your own certainty that he enjoys creation and watches his creations with interest; 2) experimenting in order to fulfil the goal you set him – to create a being with consciousness resembling his own (you agree that we probably have thought patterns in common, but you don’t agree if this lends support to any of my proposals); 3) experimenting to see what new and interesting things might emerge – ongoing learning process (not dissimilar to process theology). Just because you don’t like such alternative purposes, you claim that they are not purposes. Only your theory gives him a purpose or goal, which you now prefer to call an endpoint: to design humans and their food

DAVID: The humans are the endpoint.

They are the latest species. But I keep asking why you think they were his only purpose.

DAVID: Again you want His reasons which I cannot know.

You cannot “know” any of the answers to any of the questions concerning your theory, but you continue to promulgate it as if you DID know.

DAVID: His reasons are your problem.

No, your theory is my problem. Quite simply: I don’t understand why an all-powerful, purposeful God, whose only purpose was to design humans plus food, would have designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. Nor do you.

DAVID: You don't like the fact that I simply accept them as I accept the historical endpoints as His obvious purposes.

Every extinction is an endpoint. Please tell me the various plural purposes for the various historical endpoints.

DAVID: Adler and I accept that any relationship with God is a 50/50 probability and that He loves us is 50/50.

So do you reckon that there is also a 50/50 probability that his purpose in creating humans might have been to create a life form that would want a relationship with him and would love him? Aren’t relationships and love supposed to be two-way? I’m asking you, because I’m discussing this with you, not with Adler. I rather like these odds. I’d offer the same myself for all three of my alternative, logical theistic theories of evolution, whereas I must confess it would be something like 9-1 against your own illogical theory. And of course it’s 50/50 for me when it comes to God’s existence.

Can’t Explain the Big Bang
DAVID: lots of discussion going nowhere. We either really have something from nothing or we are back to Einstein looking for something eternal, but that is not an answer. What is first cause?

Nobody knows. 50/50 for whatever explanation folk come up with. No wonder some of us remain agnostic.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum