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

by dhw, Tuesday, May 31, 2022, 11:46 (905 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your observation that God had demonstrated direct creation abilities (the Cambrian forms), but didn't use them to produce us directly is your invented problem.

dhw: It is not my observation that he demonstrated direct creation abilities (Cambrian). It is your theory, which combined with your other theories has led to the following statements from you: “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.” If you can’t explain your theory, which makes sense only to God, you are the one with a problem.

DAVID: On the contrary, I simply view it as God's choice, which is a fine explanation from the way I think about God, and you seem unable to appreciate. I remind you I took lessons from Adler.

I don’t care who you took lessons from. We both accept that humans evolved in stages. You have theories that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us plus our food, that he designed all species and econiches, and that he was able to directly design new species without precursors. These three theories create two problems which you cannot solve: (1) if we were his only purpose, why would he first design countless species and econiches that had no connection with humans and our food? (2) Why did he not directly design the only species he wanted to design? But despite your inability to find any logical answers to these questions, you will never admit that this blatant illogicality might mean that one or all of your theories are wrong!

dhw: […] since you tell us that there is a 50/50 chance that God may/may not have human thought patterns and emotions, it is clearly absurd to dismiss logical theories solely on the grounds that they entail God possibly having human thought patterns and emotions. If I say there is a 50/50 chance that God exists, does that mean I reject the possibility of God’s existence?

DAVID: 50/50 means either/or, which means the exact true remains unknown, and we are back to best guesses.

dhw: Correct. And since you tell us that the odds concerning your God having human thought patterns and emotions are 50/50, it is absurd to dismiss theories on the grounds that he might have human thought patterns and emotions. If I say there is a 50/50 chance that God exists, does that mean I reject the possibility of God’s existence? I seem to have read all this before. Only I can’t find your answer.

DAVID: No, your rump is tender from sitting on the picket fence. I prefer solid ground, but your agnostic point is well taken. .

I’m delighted to hear that you have taken the point, and I trust that logical alternatives to your illogical theories will never again be dismissed on the grounds that they entail thought patterns and emotions similar to our own, since you regard such patterns as being 50% possible.