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

by dhw, Wednesday, March 30, 2022, 07:23 (967 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Your guesses – wanting our admiration, wanting a relationship - are just as “human” as wanting to create something interesting for himself, and in any case, you agree that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates.

DAVID: Mine are only guesses from our human standpoint and do not describe or agree to your desires for a god who creates for his interest or entertainment.

dhw: Wanting admiration and a relationship is just as “human” as wanting to create something interesting. I don’t “desire “ such a god, but if God exists, I seek a logical explanation for the history of life as we know it in the context of his possible purposes, methods and nature.

DAVID: Your 'logical' explanation is based on your human view of God's works as if He were human, and He certainly is not. We differ widely.

All of us humans, including you, have a human view of whatever we view. I do not view him “as if he were human”, but like yourself I assume he had a purpose for creating life. And like you, I assume he would have created what he wanted to create. But unlike you, I do not assume that his reasons for creating what he created “make sense only to Himself”.

dhw: It is an exact quote, and it fits in perfectly with your repeated admission that you can’t explain your theory and so I should go and ask God for his reasons.

DAVID: When will you realize I have given you a full explanation of my theory?

I’ll realize it when you give me one, so this is your chance: if your God’s only purpose was to design humans and our food, why did he design countless extinct life forms and foods that did not lead to humans and our food?

DAVID (transferred from “More miscellany”): ... it is very possible He just does it without any emotions or feelings about it. Any other approach is humanizing. […]

dhw: Yes, it is possible that the God you described as kind, and who tries to rectify the mistakes made by the system he designed, does so with no feelings. But I find it hard to imagine your first cause God creating thought patterns and emotions which he knows absolutely nothing about.

DAVID: I never said He doesn't know about our emotions! We don't know if He needs to have feelings comparable to ours.

I don’t know why you have dragged “need” into your reply. None of us know what he feels – or even if he exists – but you have repeatedly said you think he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. So why can’t you agree that this makes for a possible purpose underlying his creativity?

God's choice of war over peace

dhw: We have countless examples of peaceful cooperation in this current system, the most obvious one being the harmonious manner in which our own cell communities harmonize with one another most of the time. I gave symbiosis as another example. Do you know of any herbivore that deliberately kills other animals and eats them? I don’t see why you can’t imagine an earthly paradise[…]

DAVID: How do they live at peace? You have simply told us you wish for such a system. Tell us how it works practically. Full description please.

I have not told you I wish for it! I have asked why you think your all-powerful God chose to design a system which demands warfare for the sake of survival, and I have suggested that your all-powerful God could have created a peaceful system if he had wanted to, in which all life forms cooperate and derive their food from sources that do not have to be killed. What “full description” do you expect?

I quoted Shapiro’s theory that intelligent cells were responsible for evolutionary novelties.

DAVID: Once again you have inflated Shapiro. His proposed theory is taken from self-sufficient free- living bacteria who must have those abilities to adapt to survive. […]

dhw: I don’t know why you continue to belittle him, as if he would have constructed his theory without taking into account the findings of other scientists’ research. But do please tell me why my theistic theory is more “invented” than your own, as summarized above.

DAVID: I don't belittle him. I admire his work, first introduced him to you, and complain about how you misuse his theory.

How do I “misuse” his theory, when it is 100% explicit? He says cells are intelligent beings which create evolutionary novelty?