Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, August 07, 2022, 10:54 (621 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: How can I not use design??? Its basis is having to recognize a designer and noting an endpoint of humans, which is so unusual that it also supports a purposeful designer with an obvious endpoint in mind. How you cannot follow this reasoning is beyond me.

dhw: As usual, you are dodging the point at issue by editing out those factors which make your theory illogical. All of the above IS logical. What is not logical is your claim that your all-powerful God started out with the sole purpose of designing sapiens and his food, but individually designed 3.X billion years’ worth of species, ecosystems, lifestyles and natural wonders the majority of which had no connection with sapiens plus food.

DAVID: What is illogical is your refusal to accept the theory that God CHOSE to create us by evolving us including all the factors in your bold. The history is God's creation. It tells us how we got here by God's actions. You irrationally question a God designer who created everything extant. Everything extant is the necessary food!!!
And
DAVID: Answer this question: how do we eat without all the branches creating food-supplying ecosystems […]:

If God exists, then the history is indeed his creation. That is not what I question, and you know it. ALL life forms require and required food, so of course food is and always was necessary. Your illogicality lies in your insistence that he individually designed every extant AND EXTINCT life form and food supply as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us sapiens and our food, although - as you have repeatedly agreed - the vast majority of PAST forms and foods had no connection with us sapiens and our food. Please stop dodging!

dhw:A further illogicality is your claim that your all-powerful God was able to create species that had no precursors, and yet the only species (apart from our food) he actually wanted to design passed through stage after stage. You cannot explain either of these anomalies, and admit that they "make sense only to God". But you refuse even to consider the possibility that one or more of them might be wrong.

DAVID: Once again you are questioning how God did it. He had the right to jump ahead without precursors at any point He wished.

I am questioning your interpretation of how your all-powerful God did it. Of course he had the right to do whatever he wanted to do. But if, as you say, his sole aim was to design us and our food, then I suggest that he would have done so directly, since you say he created other species directly. That is why I propose that either he did NOT start out with the sole aim to design us and our food - especially since you claim he individually designed all those life forms and foods that had no connection with us - or those forms and foods and the different stages of our evolution could indicate experimentation or his having new ideas as he went along.

dhw: I have always objected to your use of the words “entertainment” and “neediness” as being unnecessarily pejorative, and I have been scrupulous in repeating your own terms: enjoyment and interest. […] how can you possibly know that his enjoyment of (or liking for) creation and interest in us and desire for recognition are NOT some form of self-gratification? Once you agreed that the creator had probably/possibly endowed his creations with similar thought patterns and emotions to his own. And why not? […]

DAVID: I've answered before, but since you request again, God creates with full purpose and without self-consideration of His own emotional reactions.

I agree that he must have had a purpose. What that purpose was is wide open to question. I have no idea what authority you have for saying he does not have any self interest/gratification/consideration, especially when you are certain that he enjoys creating, wants us to recognize him, and wants a relationship with us, as you confirm below.

DAVID: All of our human considerations about His emotions must be put in allegorical terms, since He is not human and is a person like no other person. He should enjoy what He does and wishing a relationship with us is obvious. I don't need to rediscuss your humanized God in the thought patterns you ascribe to Him.

There is no need for “allegory”. Of course he’s not human, but since you believe he created us and everything else out of himself, it is perfectly feasible that what he created mirrors aspects of himself. How would he, for instance, create love if he had no idea what love was?