Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, September 03, 2022, 09:43 (810 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] to believers it doesn't matter if we can't understand God's personal reasons. It is your problem you create in the way you approach God.

dhw: To believers in what? Different beliefs have resulted in some of the bloodiest conflicts in human history, as believers disagree on God’s “personal reasons”. Do you honestly think that every believer in God believes that he had only one purpose (us and our food) and therefore designed every single extinct species, ecosystem, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. as an “absolute requirement” for us and our ecosystems? If God exists, nobody knows his nature or his “personal reasons”, so why do you put forward theories that don’t make sense to you (they “make sense only to God”) if it doesn’t matter that we can’t know the truth?

DAVID: I know past believers did terrible things in the name of God. Bringing it up now is unimportant, but shows your anti-belief prejudice.

I am not prejudiced against belief in God, but it is absurd to say it doesn’t matter to believers if we can’t understand his reasons. You seem to be unaware of the wars and acts of terrorism that are still going on because some believers think anyone who doesn’t share their interpretation of God’s wishes must be punished.

DAVID: Just as you refuse to accept my view in my belief system that I can accept the history of evolution as God's works for His reasons and am content with it. The bold above is the basis for attempts at interpretation of His personality.
And later:
You are totally ignoring the overwhelming evidence God prefers to evolve everything He ever created in small stages, with the exception of the Cambrian Explosion.

I also believe in evolution in small stages, and I accept that if God exists, that is the process he designed. I do not accept – as you well know, and continue to dodge – the theory that every single extinct life form, ecosystem, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. was individually designed as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for sapiens and our food supply. This theory of yours (which makes sense only to God, and therefore not to yourself) runs into additional trouble when you insist that we are descended from life forms which had no precursors. This clearly breaks the chain of common descent, which again makes nonsense of the idea that every life form etc. that preceded the Cambrian was an “absolute requirement” for us and our food. You cannot even tell us why the brontosaurus was absolutely necessary for our food supply. My bold (“nobody knows his nature or his personal reasons) is of course the reason why we try to interpret. But it is no defence of an interpretation to admit that it doesn’t make sense even to the interpreter. (“It makes sense only to God.”)

DAVID: I accept God's works without question. I try to interpret. And as I interpret, it all makes sense to me.

dhw: You accept your interpretation of God’s work without question, and you admit that it “makes sense only to God”, which can only mean that it does not make sense to you.

DAVID: It makes perfect sense to me. Your psychoanalysis of me is silly.

I am not psychoanalysing you. I am repeating your own comment on your theories, and I keep asking you which of your theories “make sense only to God” if it is not the theories I have listed.

Transferred from “More miscellany”:

dhw: […] It was you who expressed certainty that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. This offers a perfectly feasible purpose. You moaned that my proposal meant he didn’t care. It doesn't, but your irrelevant comment shows you trying to impose the “very humanized” concept of a God who cares! And you ignore the rest of my post, which challenges your concept of what is “easier” for God to do, and which offers an explanation for the vast diversity of life extant and extinct which makes nonsense of your anthropocentrism.

DAVID: Of course, God probably has some human emotion-like qualities in His personality, but I don't think they disturb His intentionality to change His intended direction of creation by evolution.

I don’t understand your answer. Whatever human thought patterns he has would have provided the motive for his creation of the process of evolution! Why would they make him change his motive? But perhaps you mean his human thought patterns could not possibly motivate him to do anything but abide by your illogical theories, which make sense only to him, and therefore not to you.