Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, August 23, 2022, 10:55 (821 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My comment concerned the present.

dhw: It always does, and that is how you try to dodge the question why your God specially designed all the PAST life forms and econiches that did NOT lead to us and our food, if his one and only purpose was to design us and our food.

DAVID: And my answer always is God chose to evolve us from bacteria (Archaea) at the start of life.

We agree that humans evolved from bacteria!!! But you insist that your God also individually designed all those past life forms and econiches that did NOT lead to us and our food, which makes nonsense of your claim that we and our food were his one and only purpose. Please, please, stop dodging!

dhw: These are all alternative explanations for the history of evolution, and you agree that all of them fit in logically with that history, whereas your own explanation (the theory bolded above) makes no sense to you (it makes sense only to God).

DAVID: The usual distortion. My strict point is I cannot know God's reasons for His actions, but of course they make sense to Him. But I can analyze His actions to discern His reasons. What is nonsensical about this approach?

dhw: There is nothing nonsensical about the approach. Nobody can know God’s reasons for his actions (if he exists), but we both develop theories about his actions and his reasons. Yours is [BOLDED ABOVE] That is one of the theories which you tell us, not surprisingly, make sense only to God.

DAVID: As an outsider to belief, try to understand God by assuming everything thrt happens is under His direct control for His reasons.

Please stop pretending that my criticisms of your illogical theories, and the logical alternatives I offer, are invalid because I am an agnostic. You do not have any more knowledge of the “truth” than I do. Of course if he exists he has his reasons for doing what he has done. Your theories make no sense to you. You agree that my alternatives are logical and make sense to you, but you reject them because they endow him with different human attributes than those you incorporate into your own theories.

dhw: […] according to you, his theoretical, humanized purpose in designing all those unconnected life forms etc. was to design us so that we could recognize him and his work, and maybe have a relationship with him, though you are also sure that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but the reason for creating them could not possibly be that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates.

DAVID: Exactly the point!!! God is not in the business of creating organisms primarily for His enjoyment, or interest, or entertainment. These are secondary after events that may or may not occur. God purposely creates what He wishes is all we can know.

We agree 100% that if he exists, he purposely creates what he wishes. If you are sure he "enjoys" and is "interested", you have no reason to dismiss the idea that he might primarily “wish” to create things he will enjoy and be interested in! (That includes us.)

dhw: I keep pointing out all the possible “human” attributes you ascribe to your God […]

DAVID: Of course, God has some human like attributes but they don't drive His purposes.

dhw: How can you possibly know that?

DAVID: We can only observe what God does, anything more is pure conjecture, and we've done plenty of that.

Correct. So please stop assuming that your illogical conjectures must be true and none of my logical alternatives can possibly be true because you are a believer and I am an agnostic.

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: God's so-called intelligent cells are simply following His provided instructions.

dhw: That is your theory, and other scientists believe that cells have an autonomous intelligence of their own, but of course that does not exclude the possibility that your God designed their autonomous intelligence, just as you believe he designed our own.

DAVID: Yes, God as the designer is my constant theme.

I have no objections to the logical assumption that if God exists, he is the designer. We simpler differ on what he might have designed and why he might have designed it.