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

by David Turell , Sunday, May 15, 2022, 15:46 (712 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You have rigid approaches in your thoughts about your humanized God. I have never seen you change, but I do. […]

dhw: I don’t even know if God exists, but in these discussions on the possible purpose, method and nature of your God, I offer a variety of theories of evolution which you agree are logical (and you also agree that your God “might” have human thought patterns). This varied approach is what you call rigid. You have never deviated from your fixed belief that your God created life with a single purpose: to design H. sapiens and his food bush, and all other life forms were designed in preparation for ours. I would call that “rigid”.

I wish you would stop a 'rigidity' of comments in bold on my quote about your type of God theories: I agreed they only fit a very humanized God's actions. I have reached a fixed set of beliefs by opening my mind up to new ideas about Darwin evolution and God, leaving behind an amorphous collections of vague acceptance of previous thought.

DAVID: God as designer creates the gaps He wishes to create. The contradictions exist in a Godless approach.

dhw: It is perfectly feasible that if God exists, he would create the gaps he wishes to create. But if there are gaps, the process is not continuous! If you tell us that humans are descended from species which your God designed de novo (with no precursors), you can hardly go on to argue that there is a continuous line from bacteria to us. The fact that all life is biochemical does not explain the gaps. Your self-contradiction has nothing whatsoever to do with belief in God! (See above for my view of continuity.)

You see it totally backwards. Believers in God see the gaps as proof of His doing. Why was Darwin so disturbed? God's form of evolutionary process is what you confuses you. Only a designer can create the gaps in phenotype, in a process He creates.

Schroeder

DAVID: . All the folks I quote accept what God did as what He wished to do. Your human reasoning that God could/should have directly produce humans implies you know better than God how to create. We simply accept His acts. I repeat, you do not know how to think about God as we do.

dhw: If God exists, then of course he would have done what he wished to do! How does that mean that the folk you quote all accept your illogical theory of evolution and agree that it only makes sense to God? Here is the result of his wishes: a vast variety of life forms and econiches over 3.X billion years, most of which are extinct and had no direct link to the latest species (H. sapiens) and the latest food bush. H. sapiens himself evolved through many different stages. All agreed. The disagreement arises when you insist that you know God’s wishes, method and nature (your combined theories) which lead to numerous contradictions, and to your confession that you cannot find any logical explanation for your theories, which only make sense to God. I don’t “know better than God how to create”. I simply take as my starting point the possibility that God’s wishes. method etc. etc. might not be as senseless as you make them out to be. […]

The problem is your refusal to accept that we believers are content with what God created and the way He decided to do it. We don't question His reasoning, to which we are not privy. We try to understand it. We try to help you in your muddle, but your brain can only see contradictions because of the confused way you think about a god you humanize by giving him human wishes.

dhw: DAVID: God is not human.

Of course a creator of universes and life itself cannot be human.

DAVID: Any real similarity exist only as possibilities.

dhw: Correct. So you accept that all my alternative, logical theories are possible.

Only with my proviso, they only can fit your form of humanized God

DAVID: Your note of my change from 'probably' to 'possible' fits my position in our discussion perfectly. By the way, our entries differ in preparation. I simply respond to you in stream of consciousness off the top. In that way my reasoning grows. I am still on my search.

dhw: Excellent news. Perhaps eventually you will acknowledge that your own rigid theory of evolution is riddled with contradictions, and you will open your mind to alternatives which you have already agreed are logical and indeed possible.

Still at it!!! Your 'possible God type' is nothing I can recognize as possible.