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

by dhw, Monday, April 18, 2022, 12:38 (948 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You take a totally disjointed view to make it seem unreasonable. […] I accept God's works as they appear, while I do not know His reasoning. You want me to explain His reasons. I can't and I gave you my response: You ask Him.

You do not just “accept God’s works as they appear”. That is the whole problem. You insist that homo sapiens plus food were his one and only goal (not a fact), that he individually designed every species, econiche, natural wonder etc. (not a fact), and that he did so as “preparation” for humans plus food, and as a “part of the goal of evolving (= designing) humans” although, as you admit, “most branches don’t lead to humans”. These are all theories of your own, and you can’t explain why your God did not fulfil YOUR one and only goal directly. I do not “make it seem unreasonable”. If you can’t find any reason, then your theories ARE unreasonable.

DAVID: I am sure He creates with no initial self-reflection about His emotional needs, if He has any.

dhw: Please don’t make him sound needy. Enjoyment and interest are not a sign of pathetic inadequacy.

DAVID: It is your God you are describing with His needs. I didn't invent them.

They are not “needs”, and you said you were sure that he enjoyed creation and was interested in his creations. I didn’t “invent” this possibility.

dhw: I’ll settle for your 50/50. I only ask for recognition that my alternatives are possible explanations of life’s history.

DAVID: Your alternatives fit the personality of a humanized God.

They are all logical, and are no more “humanized” than your own proposals, which include his enjoyment and interest, his making choices and changes on the way to a final design, just like a playwright before production, his kindness, his desire to have his work admired etc.

DAVID: In recognizing the potential errors in free acting molecules, but recognizing it was the only system that could work, He accepted His own judgements, provided editing to the process and produced life. Your twisted complaint simply questions God's judgement.

dhw: There is no “twisted complaint” and no questioning of your God’s judgement or, if he exists, of the obvious fact that he produced life. I am simply suggesting that if he is all-powerful, he could have produced a different system, and therefore I propose that the system he created is the system he wanted, as opposed to being the only one that could work. “Freedom” is the operative word, and your belief that he tried to correct “errors” but sometimes failed also casts doubt on his all-powerfulness.

DAVID: How do you know any other system is possible? My view is we have the only system that can work, provided by God's judgement of what can work. You say God had a choice. An unsupported theory.[…]

YOU have said he made choices along the way. How can you make choices if there is no alternative? If God exists, none of our theories about his motives and methods has any support. Your theory entails “errors” and vain attempts to correct them. My theory has him creating the system he wanted to create, not the system he “had to” create because there was no choice although he made choices. Which of these sounds more “godlike” to you?

DAVID: My theories make perfect sense to me.[…]

dhw: […] How can a theory make perfect sense to you if your explanation is that you can’t explain it?

DAVID (under “More miscellany”): Why must I explain God's reasoning to you? I accept what He did and reach obvious conclusions as to His goals. You've twisted poor Darwin's reasoning. He knew the Cambrian gap damaged his theory. Only a designer can create such a gap.

You have dodged the Cambrian issue. If your God could create species without precursors (and you say we are descended from them), why didn’t he create us directly if we were his only goal?

DAVID: Why can 't you accept God uses evolution at all stages of creation starting with direct creation, followed by an evolving universe, an evolving Milky Way, and an evolving Earth?

If God exists, I accept that he used evolution at all stages. Our disagreement starts with the evolution of life forms and your irrational theory concerning the how and the why, which you can’t explain.

DAVID: I don't have to explain the way God does things. I don't know His reasoning. I can't. Can you?

No, but I can explain MY reasoning for MY alternative theories. You can’t explain your reasoning for your theories, but you assume they are correct and so you blame me for pointing out all the reasons why they may be wrong.

DAVID (also from “More miscellany”): Since I believe in God, it all makes sense to me. Without belief, no wonder you are in a puzzle.

You don’t know his reasoning, which means you can’t find any logic in your theories, so how can it all make sense to you??? All my logical alternatives allow for God’s existence, so please stop pretending that my agnosticism is to blame for your inability to explain your theories.