More "miscellany" (General)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 29, 2022, 16:51 (638 days ago) @ dhw

Extremophiles

dhw: It’s not psychoanalysis! When you say you can’t explain a theory, and it “makes sense only to God”, I assume you mean you can’t explain it, and it doesn’t make sense to you.

DAVID: This is the most confused view of my beliefs you constantly present. I fully accept what God did for His own reasons and I am fully content with that as making perfect sense. The problem is fully yours. You don't like that answer because it doesn't solve your internal problems about how to think about God.

dhw: Of course it makes perfect sense that your God would have done what he did for his own reasons. But that does not mean that what he did was individually design each individual species (plus econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder), and it does not mean that his sole purpose in creating life was to design H. sapiens plus food, and it does not mean that every individual species etc – including all those that had no connection with humans – was preparation for and an “absolute requirement” for the design of H. sapiens plus food.

I accept that what history shows for all occurrences/events is/was God's doing. We arrived after a very prolonged time period of about 3.8 billion years. You don't believe in God, so therefore He didn't do it? That means it all happened by chance, but since it shows purposeful directionality of ever more complexity, how can chance produce that?


dhw: As for my agnosticism, I wouldn’t call it confusion. I have given clear reasons why I cannot choose between what seem to me to be two equally unlikely explanations for our existence, but I agree that one way or another I am wrong! However, since there is no human being on earth who can verify either theory, I don’t feel that my indecision denotes confusion. I would apply that term to the self-contradictions that permeate your combination of evolutionary theories.

DAVID: They are your contradictions, not mine, as you misinterpret my beliefs.

dhw: Which of the beliefs listed above has been misinterpreted?

Specifically, you ignore how I think about and accept God, with no problem, as expressed in all your doubts. You agree God can do whatever He wants, but don't accept historical events as His doing. God created us for His own reasons, at which we only can guess. Your guesses and mine disagree.


DAVID: And if the obvious biological design keeps you agnostic, rather than atheist, who is the necessary designer? One logical observation of design necessitates the next step in logic, a designer exists. Forget all the ancient myths you were given as a child. Accept a logical designer and then build your thoughts from there. That is all I did in the beginning of my change.

dhw: This has nothing to do with the illogicality and blatant contradictions in your combined theories of evolution, which you claim I have misinterpreted, but yet again you try to dodge by coming back to the question of God’s existence. I HAVE NEVER DISPUTED THE LOGIC OF THE ARGUMENT THAT DESIGN ENTAILS A DESIGNER. And I can understand why you constantly revert to that when your blatantly illogical combination of evolutionary theories comes under attack, since you yourself consider it to be senseless (“it makes sense only to God”). But don’t you get tired of making me repeat that I find it just as difficult to believe in the being I have described under “Octopus” as I do in chance?

So. once again, my logical beliefs are senseless. Only to you. So, if: "I HAVE NEVER DISPUTED THE LOGIC OF THE ARGUMENT THAT DESIGN ENTAILS A DESIGNER" makes sense why do you refuse to accept that the designer must exist??? Leave out all the religious overlay as I did. Adler never uses anything from religions.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum