Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Monday, August 08, 2022, 15:34 (620 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: In the bold you are directly denying me the right to believe in a designer God.

dhw: Where on earth do you see that? I am questioning your belief that your designer God designed all extinct life forms and ecosystems as an “absolute requirement” for us and our food although most of them had no connection with us and our food! 2) Please stop dodging!

Why must I repeat an argument you ignore? It is not just our food. All animal organisms must eat, and all the branches in ecosystems develop a huge food supply for the now huge human population. True or false?

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Once again, your humanized God appears. My concept of God fits my theory. Yours is not purposeful and is floundering.

dhw: Your concept of God is that he had one purpose in mind, and proceeded to design countless life forms, econiches etc. that had no connection with his purpose, and then to fiddle with lots of preliminary forms before designing the one he wanted, although you believe he was perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors. You can find no rationality in this concept, which you say “makes sense only to God”. In all my alternatives, God is purposeful, and I do not regard experimental science or ongoing creativity as “floundering”.

Of course, the God you invent carries your innate foibles.

dhw: 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: My authority is Adler and his book 'How to think about God'.

dhw: Unless Adler was God, I don’t know where he got his authority from, but if he believed as you do that God enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, wants us to recognize him, and wants a relationship with us, I really can’t see why he would think God is incapable of human-style self-interest.

As above, that is the God you want to invent. As for Adler he was a leading philosopher of religion, and an advisor to the Catholic Faith.

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.

dhw: 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?

DAVID: For once you are thinking about a God in a reasonable way. Of course, He knows love and every other emotion.

dhw: Wonderful! Then there is absolutely no reason to dismiss these emotions as “allegorical”, so please stop complaining about theories that entail your God having human patterns of thought and emotions.

I'm complaining about how much you humanize your possible God.