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

by David Turell , Monday, June 06, 2022, 16:17 (899 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The original 50/50 refers to "one or the other, nothing else probable". I don't know if God's thoughts and emotions are similar to ours, but I think it probable.

dhw: Thank you. If it is probable, then that is all the more reason why you should stop objecting to my logical alternative theistic theories of evolution solely on the grounds that they entail thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: That is still over-humanizing God!

dhw: Who are you to judge which similar thought patterns are possible and which are not? You yourself have “guessed” that your God enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, wants us to admire his works, wants a relationship with us, is too kind to deliberately create bugs that would harm us. Why are your humanizing “guesses” OK, but it is “over-humanizing” to envisage a God who experiments, gets new ideas, enjoys a “free-for-all” rather than a puppet show?

Those attributes you are listing show a non-purposeful namby-pamby humanized God who needs entertainment. My God with the attributesd you listed has purpose and intent to reach goals.

dhw: […]I do not expect you to support any of the alternatives I offer. You agree that they are logical, and you agree that you can’t find any logic in the combination of your own theories. And so I merely ask you to admit that at least one of your theories might be wrong, and one or other of my own might be right.

DAVID: I have never agreed that my thoeries might be wrong, much as you try to imagine it. My thoughts are sufficient logical for me to be satisfied with them. You illogically criticise God because He didn't just create us forthwith! And all the while you agree God can do whatever He wishes to do. Can't have it both ways.

dhw: You are satisfied by telling us that you can’t explain your combination of theories, which “makes sense only to God”, and I should go and ask him for an explanation. I have never criticized your God! My criticism is of your illogical theories, e.g. that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, and so he designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us and our food. The only point that we can agree on here is that you have never agreed that your inexplicable theories might be wrong!

You still don't understand belief! History shows us what God did in this theism discussion. I simply accept the history as God's results following His reasons, not known to us. Our final appearance demonstrates His final goal. He did it His way, the way you complain about. That you can't understand my theories you call inexplicable, is your problem, not mine. Your analysis is totally wrong, so as long as you use it, we will ping pong forever!