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

by dhw, Saturday, May 14, 2022, 07:26 (15 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: 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.

But you keep changing your tune whenever I quote you. Originally you wrote under “theodicy”: “God is in the business of creation and enjoys doing it or I think He would stop.” And “I’m sure God enjoys His work at creating.” There was even this astonishing proposal: “He seems to me full of purposeful activity to create what He desires to create with no other motive than the creations themselves” – though you swiftly backed out of this when I pointed out that it contradicted your fixed belief that his one and only goal was to design humans. And I also noted: “I’m sure He sees what is going on with His own level of interest, unknown to us.” The modification to “MIGHT” came later, but in fact it makes no difference. You are still allowing for the possibility, and so you can hardly dismiss the theory while at the same time agreeing that it is possible.

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

dhw: 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.

DAVID: 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.

Your usual vague generalisation, which is contradicted elsewhere. Here you harp on about continuity, and in the next breath you’ll harp on about the gaps, which for you provide evidence of your God’s existence. Gaps, in case you hadn’t noticed, are the opposite of continuity. But of course there is continuity, in so far as different life forms have continuously come and gone, every branch developing from earlier branches, but that does not mean that every past life form, branch and ecosystem was preparation for and led to humans and our food – your fixed belief which is contradicted by the above bolded quotes.


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.[/b]” […]

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.

DAVID: If you read them, I am covered fully.

Then please tell us how they explain your God’s purpose in designing the countless life forms and bushes that did not lead to his one and only goal of humans plus our bush, and why God chose to design his one and only goal (H. sapiens) in dribs and drabs though he was perfectly capable of designing species directly.

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".

DAVID: We totally differ and will never see eye to eye.

Obviously not if you close your eyes to the flaws in your theories and dismiss any logical alternatives for no reason other than the fact that they suggest human thought patterns, although you consider it possible (originally “probable”) that your God has similar thought patterns to ours.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum