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

by dhw, Tuesday, June 07, 2022, 09:06 (689 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The original 50/50 refers to "one or the other, nothing else probable".bbb 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?

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

Experimenting for a particular purpose, and creating for enjoyment (encompassing the pleasure of new ideas or unexpected developments) are both purposeful, and you yourself were once certain that your God enjoyed creating. That does not make him “namby-pamby” or“needy”.

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!

DAVID: 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.

You still don’t understand that whether God exists or not, the history consists of countless life forms, most of which are extinct and had no connection with humans. History does not show that God designed every one of them, or that every one of them was an “absolute requirement” for the design of humans plus food, or that humans plus food were his goal from the very beginning of life. Please stop imagining that these theories are history. They are beliefs which, when combined, are so illogical that you are forced to admit that you cannot explain why your God would have fulfilled your version of his purpose in your version of his actions.

DAVID: 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!

So long as you continue to conflate your theories with the history, and continue to combine theories which are so illogical that you admit you cannot explain them and they “make sense only to God”, of course we will ping pong forever. If you can’t accept your own statements, what chance do I have of convincing you that your statements mean what they say?