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

by dhw, Wednesday, March 16, 2022, 11:11 (772 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You will never understand the giant bush of life provides necessary food for all, past and present.

You do not wish to recognize the obvious truth of your own statement that past foods were for the past and not for the present, and so it is patently absurd to argue that every extinct past food was specially designed in preparation for human food. Ditto your fixed belief that every extinct organism was specially designed “as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans.”

dhw: Experimentation and having new ideas are not “changing his mind”. They are theories to explain why he might have individually designed every life form plus food that had no connection with humans – that part of your theory which otherwise makes no sense if his sole purpose was to design humans plus our food. [...]

DAVID: [...] I view God as all-knowing and all-purposeful with specific goals from the beginning of His creating.

dhw: Experimentation provides a logical explanation for your God wanting to design humans but designing life forms etc. that turned out to have no connection with humans. On the other hand, the new ideas theory focuses on a “specific goal” of creating interesting things to watch, and learning as he goes along. A “free-for-all” suggests the same goal, with the added enjoyment provided by the unexpected. All of these theories are all-purposeful with specific goals from the beginning. However, they depict a God who is not all-knowing but – perhaps along the lines of A.N.Whitehead’s “process theology” – is always “becoming”, i.e. learning and experiencing.

DAVID: Follow Whitehead if you wish. I view your God as highly humanized.

See below.

DAVID: (from “More miscellany"): Our human personality does mirror Him, but that should not be used to imagine He has equivalent thoughts and desires.

dhw:. […] If our human personality does mirror him, how do you know you are wrong when you “guess” that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and when I “guess” that this might be his purpose for creating life?

DAVID: I'm not saying I'm wrong about my guesses, but guesses have little weight in being sure about the conclusions guesses bring. That is why I don't accept your guesses about God. I have my purposeful goal-directed God and your guesses produce a humanized God.

I have already responded to your insinuation that my theories leave God without a purpose. They don’t. (See above.) And I have shown in detail that your own guesses about God (enjoyment, interest, shared thought patterns, emotions and logic, kindness, desire to be admired, to have a relationship with us) are just as humanized as mine, and I find it perfectly feasible that a creator might invest his creations with some of his own attributes.

DAVID: Just accept history as showing God's choices.

dhw: If God exists, then clearly the countless branches unconnected with humans and their food must have been his choice. That makes nonsense of the claim that humans and their food were his one and only choice.

DAVID: Not Choice! The vast body of food is a necessary accompaniment.

dhw: The vast body of past foods was necessary for past organisms. That does not mean that all past food and organisms were necessary for the production and survival of humans! […]

DAVID: […] If Adler accepted your views his argument for God disappears.

Of course it doesn’t disappear. The complexity of humans, just like the complexity of all life forms, is such that it is perfectly logical to argue that they must have been designed, and therefore there must be a designer. You have told us repeatedly that Adler does NOT cover your own illogical theory, so please stop hiding behind him.