Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2 (Evolution)

by David Turell , Tuesday, May 24, 2022, 17:40 (912 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO
God and evolution of the universe

DAVID: Look at this opinion from dhw:
dhw: So apparently your God designed all the billions of heavenly bodies extant and extinct because every one of them was and is necessary to create and support life on Planet Earth. I don’t buy it.

DAVID:The universe is even stranger:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/05/220520181234.htm

DAVID: […] why question why it must exist as dhw does? We have been provided for. We are living peacefully here when from a natural occurrence standpoint there is no reason we should be here. Just ask Adler.

dhw: I do not question why all these mysterious goings-on must exist! I question your theory that your God designed all of them, because all of them were an "absolute requirement" for him to fulfil his one and only goal of designing humans. […] you have not given me a single reason why I should “buy” your theory, which you yourself find inexplicable, I am simply supposed to accept it. The only change in your “explanation” here is that I should ask Adler, whereas previously I was told to ask God.

DAVID: I'm not surprised at your steadfast agnosticism: as I understand your history, the God of the Old Testament so disturbed you, you dropped away from belief. But recognizing the complexities of design kept you from atheism. Despite all the material for design I have presented for your education, you are still stuck at the point at the time you opened this website. The point of that start was never meant to change your mind. Your choice.

dhw: Yet again you dodge the issues raised by your illogical theories. The history and reasons for my agnosticism are totally irrelevant.

Your mindset is relevant and rigid. You see the design that keeps you agnostic. The next logical step for a logical human mind is to recognize the design complexity must be created by a designing mind. Where or how that mind came from is irrelevant. All of the new information that exists in living matter has to come from somewhere. See today's entry.

Ecosystem importance: protecting diversity

DAVID: while not exactly on my point about the importance of diverse ecosystems and possible damage, the authors are developing a formula for future study and I've skipped that portion of the paper. What is clear is the degree of alarm. dhw's tunnel view of humans and their food simply tries to remove the problem from consideration. Life must have a diverse food supply at all times, all during the process of evolution. Viewed from the position of a progressive designer, he would understand the problem, provide a very diverse bush of complex ecosystems all through evolution from bacteria until the final arrival of an anticipated huge human population, huge because of the human extraordinary mental capacity. In dhw's view God dawdled along the way instead of getting right to it. What history presents is what I accept as God's doing. From that viewpoint, it makes perfect sense to a believer but apparently not to an outsider.

dhw: The article stresses the importance of balanced ecosystems, and I would endorse everything the authors say. It is also blindingly obvious that all life needs food. What is not even remotely obvious is why, if God’s one and only purpose was humans plus our food bush, he would individually design countless numbers of organisms and food bushes that did not lead to humans and our food bush. Indeed, you can’t find a single reason why he would have done so – it “makes sense only to God”. And so dhw’s view is not that your God dawdled along the way to pursuing his one and only goal, but that he would have had different goals and maybe different methods for creating the vast diversity of now extinct life forms and bushes. In other words, he knew what he wanted, and the vast numbers of life forms and bushes must have served a purpose in themselves, instead of being preparations for and part of your one and only goal of producing humans plus food. Each of my alternatives allows for God as the creator, so please stop telling us (a) that your combination of theories makes sense to you, although you admit that you can’t explain it, and (b) that your inability to find any sense in it is due to my agnosticism.

My sense of it all butts heads with your rigid agnosticism. I criticized your human form of God enough in the past not to repeat it again. Above and elsewhere I have described my concept of a designing mind. That mind may know and understand human emotions and desires, since that mind created us, but may have no human emotions itself. 50/50 still means yes or no!