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

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 05, 2022, 20:10 (217 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID: The humans are the endpoint.

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

And I can't answer since I do not know His reasons, but can guess. See all past entries on the subject


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

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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.

All I can tell you accepting history as we are here, by God's will


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

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

Silly question. Every extinction leads from past to future forms. The Earth doesn't have room toc keep everything around


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

dhw: 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.

My theory is perfectly logical when one accepts God as the designer of all life. You are so illogical you recognize the importance of complex living design, but then refuse to recognize a powerful planning mind is necessary to produce those designs and must exist. Something doesn't come from nothing, but that is what your illogical approach requires. This is why ID simply says there must be a designer, and stops at that point.


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?

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

Agnosticism is not a solution, which means you do not need one. But I need a solution and you complain about it.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum