Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2 (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, March 01, 2022, 06:50 (996 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] You are totally blind to how you use a humanized God to back your theories.

dhw: You are totally blind to your own belief that your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours, and that we mimic him in many ways, and you are totally blind to the obvious fact that he would hardly design something he knew nothing about... [DAVID's bold}

DAVID: Off the deep end! The bold says God does not see the future and know how to design it?

You have taken this out of its context, which is thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours. How, for instance, would your God design a being that felt love if he himself had no understanding of “love”?

dhw: ...and that it is not unreasonable to suppose that a creator would project part of himself into what he creates. Shared thought patterns do not, however, mean that a God who can create a universe and life must be human, which is the “distortion” and “overemphasis” that you imply in your efforts to undermine alternative theories which you regard as logical.

DAVID: Distorting again. Putting Himself into this universe is logical. The way you describe how He decides to do what He does is based on giving him human thoughts on your part.

Yes, all my alternatives entail giving him thoughts in common with those of humans. But that does not make him into a human being! You keep agreeing that he probably shares thought patterns with us, but the moment I introduce a thought pattern he may share with us, you moan that I am “humanizing” him. At the same time you agree that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, you tell us he is too kind to wish us harm when he designs nasty bacteria and viruses, and when pressed, you even speculate that he might want us to admire his work and have a relationship with him. These are all patterns of thought and emotions which he could easily have in common with us, but they don’t mean he is human!

DAVID: Adler specifically uses God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.

dhw: You keep agreeing that Adler does NOT cover your theory, so why do you keep bringing him into the discussion of your theory? Confusion, or a deliberate sidestep?

DAVID: Please read the above again! My theory is not involved but Adler's philosophic point is quite clear. God produced humans

The whole point is that your theory is not involved, so why do you constantly bring Adler in on a discussion which exposes the illogicality of your theory?

DAVID: I...continue to view all of evolution as one whole giant process.

dhw: You have rejected all four of my alternatives. I agree with you that evolution is one whole giant process in which vast numbers of life forms and their foods have come and gone, and we represent only one branch among countless other branches of life forms and their foods, the vast majority of which had no connection with us and our foods. It is therefore manifestly illogical to claim that all other life forms and foods were “preparation” for us, and were “part of the goal of evolving humans” and our foods.

DAVID: If evolution is a 'whole giant process' everything that happened can easily be viewed as God's purposes being fulfilled in a stepwise fashion through one process.

dhw: Of course it can. What is impossible to view is that he only had one purpose (humans plus food) and therefore individually designed countless numbers of life forms "in preparation" for humans plus food, and as "part of the goal of evolving humans" plus food although most of them had no connection with humans plus food.

DAVID: What is the evolution of humans but exactly what you decry? Still slicing evolution into disconnected parts.

How can the evolution of life forms and foods that had no connection with humans have been a “preparation” for humans, and “part of the goal” of evolving humans? Evolution developed into disconnected branches, of which you agree humans are just one. You admit that you can’t answer the question, you tell me to ask God, so how long are you going to go on pretending that your theory makes sense?