Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Tuesday, August 09, 2022, 16:43 (835 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 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: All the branches in which ecosystems? You have now decided to leave out the whole of pre-human history! You have agreed that the majority of extinct branches of life forms and ecosystems did NOT lead to us or our food.

I don't know how you can claim I agreed. I have constantly said evolution is a continuum, and the past must lead to the future. All ecosystems have a role in feeding us.

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

dhw: The God you invent acts in a way which makes no sense to you (it “makes sense only to God”), and you agree that all my alternative versions have him acting in a way that fits in logically with life’s history. Your only objection to my different versions is that they entail thought patterns and emotions like ours, but you agree that your God probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions like ours.

Why can't you see a God in charge of creation creates exactly what He wishes for His own reasons. We can only try to interpret His reasons from that viewpoint. Therefore, it 'makes sense only to God' is a logical starting point. 'Thought and emotions' must be expressed allegorically which means not in any way equivalent to ours. The personality of the God you present is very humanizing as you now seem to agree, and the God I present differs greatly.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: As above, that is the God you want to invent.

dhw: I have quoted your own proposals concerning your God’s thought patterns and emotions, and I fail to see how these can preclude self-interest.

I have said God does not create for self-entertainment. He creates to create not to satisfy Himself

DAVID: As for Adler he was a leading philosopher of religion, and an advisor to the Catholic Faith.

dhw: So now you – who pride yourself on NOT following religious teachings – expect atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and every religious and non-religious philosopher who ever lived, to bow to the authority of one philosopher just because you agree with him. (But I have no quarrel with Adler’s logical defence of design as evidence for a designer, since that is what you always fall back on when dodging the illogicalities of your theory of evolution.)

Thinking about God requires some guidelines if religious teachings are ignored. Adler, as a philosopher of religion does just that and I follow those guidelines he provides.

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.

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

dhw: It’s probably no good my asking again, but I will: why do you think a fully purposeful God who enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, knows love and every other emotion, wants our recognition and wants to have a relationship with us (all your terms) is less human than a fully purposeful God who enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, knows love and every other emotion, and experiments and/or tries out new ideas?

Back to experimentation or changing course with new ideas. A purposeful God creates to determined endpoints He has identified. He is not a humanized God as you keep insisting.