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

by dhw, Thursday, April 21, 2022, 07:32 (728 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You want me to explain God's choice of method of creation. I can't so I won't.

dhw: Correction: I want you to explain the reasoning behind your theory concerning your God’s choice of method of creation. And you can’t, because you know your theory doesn’t make sense.

DAVID: Wrong! Only two 'possibles' for creation: direct or stepwise. Only the latter exists. Explain what? My theory exists beyond this level of discussion.

You claim that during the Cambrian, species appeared that had no precursors, and the gaps meant that they could only have been designed directly by your God. So according to you, he speciates directly if he wants to. Yes indeed, your theory goes way beyond this with the claim that your God specially designed every species, but his only purpose was to design us plus food, and so he designed all the countless life forms and foods that did not lead to us. It makes no sense even to you, but still you defend it.

DAVID: I’ve answered an OBVIOUS point, food supply for our current enormous population.

dhw: How many more times do you want me to repeat your own demolition of this argument? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms. ” And “Extinct life has no role in current time.”

DAVID:Obvious point: What applies in old times of evolution applies in new times! Stop chopping up evolution into unrelated segments. The past leads to the present.

That is the exact opposite of your bolded remarks, and you know it. The bush of life contained countless branches that have gone extinct and have no role in current time.

DAVID: What is obvious is the history of creation which I follow exactly in arguments. Why don't you follow it? Instead a constant barrage of illogical complaints. God produced one method of creation by His unknown reasoning.

We both follow the history, since we agree that there have been countless extinct life forms which did not lead to humans or our food, and humans evolved in stages. The “barrage of illogical complaints” is met by your agreement that you cannot find any logic that will explain your theory as bolded above, which can only mean that you find it illogical, and “God makes sense only to himself”.

DAVID: I accept it is the only possible system, because it is God's choice.

dhw: It is totally illogical to claim that there is only one possible system and in the same breath to say that God was “constantly making choices and came up with the best”.

DAVID: God saw one obvious choice of creating life. My quote. exactly. is that I think the current biochemical system may have involved choices and tweaks in construction as I did as a human in my designs. On the other hand. God may have outrightly done it in one step.

Thank you for yet again “humanizing” your God by comparing his method to yours, and thank you also for agreeing that he may have made choices and tweaks, which can only mean that he knew there were alternatives. I have no problem with this anyway, since my theistic proposal is that he designed precisely the system he wanted to design, as opposed to your proposal that he knew his design would cause errors which he did NOT want and which he tried – sometimes in vain, despite his all-powerfulness – to correct.

DAVID: Your imagined humanized God does not recognize the true God is not required to be consistent.
And
DAVID: And you have no concept of how to think about God. What have you read on the subject? And from whom?

dhw: The only mind qualified to tell us how to think about God is God’s, if he exists. This is your silliest dodge yet. If you can’t find a rational response to my arguments, then please don’t pretend that you’ve solved the problems by reading lots of books that I haven’t read.

DAVID: At least with no knowledge of theological thinking, I looked into other human thought about God, their advice about how to view Him. I found it helpful. You find yourself above that and have launched into the area of thought totally independently. Fine. But that explains why you do not understand how I view your God as humanized.

I was raised as a Jew, studied both parts of the Bible at school, and made a point of studying other religions as my original faith began to crumble. I am not totally ignorant of other people’s views of God, but am always put off when anybody pretends that he knows what God thinks and feels. Your antipathy towards any suggestion of God sharing thought patterns, emotions and logic with his creations (although you think he probably does) seems to me one of the weakest of all your arguments, particularly since you yourself continuously endow him with human characteristics. You try to wriggle out of that by saying they’re only guesses. Every pronouncement made by us humans about your God is a guess.