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

by dhw, Thursday, January 06, 2022, 11:57 (834 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

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.

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

And according to you, every other species, including those not connected with humans, is/was 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.

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

How can all extinct species, including those that had no connection with humans and our food, have led to us humans and our food?

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.

DAVID: My theory is perfectly logical when one accepts God as the designer of all life.

That is your theory that God exists. What follows is yet another dodge:

DAVID: 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.

The theory of design is perfectly logical, and I do not oppose it. But it does not justify your illogical theory of evolution, which has your God, whose only goal is to design sapiens plus food, designing countless life forms that had no connection with sapiens plus food. Your diversionary tactics are unworthy.

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.

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

Your personal “needs” do not make a solution “logical”. However, I accept the logic of the design argument, while I reject the illogicality of your theory of evolution. However, I also accept the logic of the argument that a first-cause, sourceless mind is as hard to believe in as minds created by a first-cause lucky combination in an eternal history of combinations. Of course it’s not a solution. You’re right, I do not feel any pressure of “need”. I accept that I’m going to die anyway, and if there’s no afterlife, I shall never know the answers. If there is an afterlife, I may find out more. I’m not in a hurry! But I am simply fascinated by the subject, which is why I opened this website.