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

by David Turell , Monday, May 16, 2022, 19:18 (920 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 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.

dhw: And you agree that your God might possibly have thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to our own. Therefore, you agree that my logical theories are possible.

God is not human. He knows our emotions, but if He has any of them is unknown. To repeat: Your theories about God only fit a very humanized form of God.

dhw: Thank you for acknowledging that your set of beliefs is fixed – i.e. rigid. At one time, of course you were flexible enough to consider ideas different from those you held originally, but now you have closed your mind. The result is a fixed belief which is so illogical that you are forced to acknowledge you cannot explain it and it “makes sense only to God”.

I cannot explain God's works for you. I can only analyze them in view of the picture I have of a very purposeful God who knows His goals, and exactly how to reach them in vast contrast to your God-vision of a humanized bumbler. Of course, God makes sense to himself.

DAVID: God as designer creates the gaps He wishes to create. The contradictions exist in your mind.

dhw: I have just pointed out that this is a perfectly feasible view. However, it contradicts your insistence that evolution is a continuous process, as explained in the bold which you have ignored. And if it is not continuous, and we are descended from specially designed species with no precursors, how does that support the view that his one and only purpose from the outset was to design us? You can’t explain it. “It makes sense only to God.”

A designer who is evolving organisms over time from single cells to us is running a continuous process under his control. There can be gaps in phenotype, but never in biochemistry of life, under his controls. That is an obvious explanation, while you torture quotes into meaninglessness. God's evolution is not Darwinian.

Schroeder

dhw: […] 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. […]

DAVID: 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: You talk as if every Jewish, Christian, Muslim, African, Indian, South American “believer” believes in your combined theories of evolution, which “make sense only to God”.

God's evolution makes sense to me, as non-Darwinian. My theories are a distillation of believer's commentaries, especially ID.

dhw: or have you never heard of believers who think God watches over them, loves them, judges them, wants them to worship him etc.? You have frequently expressed your negative view of the way religions “humanize” God, but perhaps you don’t count religious people as “believers” and only you know how to think about God.

Thank you for recognizing those religious folks are the ones I ignore in my thinking!!!

dhw: 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.

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

dhw: What “God type”? If, for instance, you believe it is possible that God enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest, why is it impossible for you to “recognize” that God might want to enjoy creating and watching his creations with interest?

Still looking at God with human emotions. The purpose of God's creatability is not to satisfy His own emotional desires in my view, vastly unlike yours