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

by David Turell , Friday, May 13, 2022, 18:16 (705 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Stop using my guesses as in the quotes above, as if they have any theoretical value about God. You know full well I have described a very purposeful God who selflessly creates what He wishes.

dhw: My theories all describe a very purposeful God who creates what he wishes. Why “selflessly” when you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates? Why make such guesses if you want me to ignore them? All our theories are guesses, since they are unproven.

I've told you I am not certain God has to enjoy what He creates. That He MIGHT enjoy it, is as far as one should go.

This continuous ping-pong discussion about God only proves your vision and my vision of God's possible personality are wide apart.

Your totally misunderstanding of my meaning in these quotes is evidence to me:

"dhw: ...you insist that 3.X billion years’ worth of ecosystems were all preparation for the huge human population, and yet […] “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.” These statements make perfect sense, and make nonsense of the claim that past ecosystems were preparation for the current population of humans."

I view evolution as a continuous process run by God, and from my viewpoint, the quotes are exactly reasonable in that context. I will stick to that viewpoint.

Schroeder

dhw: Once again you hide behind vague generalisations. The subject is your illogical, self-contradictory theories of evolution. I don’t understand why you find it necessary to keep dodging like this. You have agreed that you can’t explain your own reasoning, have said quite explicitly that your theory only makes sense to God, so that should end the discussion. […]

dhw: […] I fully understand your reluctance to reply. Perhaps I should simply keep repeating it whenever you tell us that your combined theories make perfect sense and that your inability to explain them is an explanation of those theories, which only make sense to God.

DAVID I don't know where the above comment fits. But I think it refers to yesterday.

dhw: It refers to your statements: “What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?” And “God makes sense only to Himself.” […]

DAVID: I engaged myself into a study of my soft agnosticism by reading the thoughtful works of others: Denton, Schroeder, Adler are major influences.

dhw: Interesting, but doesn’t answer the questions raised by your inexplicable theories of evolution, which apparently aren’t covered by these thoughtful works.

If you read them, I am covered fully.

dhw: No one can tell anyone else how to think about God! But yes, we look at what he does/did (assuming he exists) and we form theories. Some are more logical than others.

DAVID: I look at your amorphous approach to God as a human perversion of Him.

dhw: I offer alternative interpretations of his possible purpose and method. I have no idea why you consider your guess at enjoyment and interest, or my guesses at an experimenting or “learning” God (see Schroeder and Whitehead) to be a human "perversion".

We totally differ and will never see eye to eye