Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, September 10, 2022, 08:54 (803 days ago) @ David Turell

Ecosystem importance

dhw: All living things play or played a role in their ecosystems. But there were countless living things and ecosystems in the huge bush of life before we appeared, and the majority did not lead to us or to our ecosystems. However, you insist that your God designed all those that did not lead to us or our ecosystems as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our ecosystems, which you insist were his one and only goal. You can’t find any logical reason for this blatant contradiction, which is why you say your theories “make sense only to God”

DAVID: You always forget I accept all of history as God's purposeful creations. One branch led to us, the rest to food. There are no contradictions except the ones you invent. (dhw’s bold)

This has become a continuous word game instead of a serious discussion on your God’s possible purpose, method and – ultimately – nature. If God exists, then he would certainly have created life, and the history of life must be what he wanted. 1) That does not mean he deliberately and individually designed every single organism and ecosystem that ever existed. 2) for those of us who believe in evolution, one branch led to us. Every branch and every organism "led to food". But not to food for us! SOME branches led to food for us, but vast numbers of organisms and ecosystems did not, and you cannot think of any reason why your God would have deliberately and individually designed all those organisms and ecosystems that did not lead to us and our food if his one and only purpose was to design us and our food. Please stop playing word games.

DAVID: (re Neandertals): dhw's worries about all the hominins and homos before us should be dispensed by my theory about God that He carefully takes evolutionary steps with everything He creates, as shown by known history.

dhw: I’m not worried. I just don’t understand why an all-powerful God who only wanted to create H. sapiens (plus our food) should have bothered creating all the other homos first, although you believe he is perfectly capable of creating species without precursors (the Cambrian). You can’t understand it either – it “makes sense only to God”. NB I am not denying evolution by stages. I am suggesting that there may be a better explanation than the one you say "makes sense only to God", i.e. not to you.

DAVID: God evolves. The pattern is clear.

More word games. We both believe in evolution, but by evolution you mean God individually designed every species, and you cannot understand why, if he wanted to design H. sapiens and was capable of designing species without any precursors (the Cambrian), he chose to design hominin after hominin and homo after homo before finally designing H. sapiens and getting rid of all the others. It is a theory that “makes sense only to God”, i.e. not to you. To quote your memorable words to me: “You are too close to your beliefs, that you don’t see your built-in biases.”

DAVID: Your psychiatric analysis of my thinking continues. From above: " I accept all of history as God's purposeful creations". I don't think you really apprehend what that IMPLIES. And I reject your approach to your very humanized form of God, even as I've agreed your theories are consistent with a very humanized God.

I have explained above exactly what it implies, and your rejection of my “very humanized God” is based on your “built-in bias” in favour of your own “very humanized God” – although in some cases, your humanizations are exactly the same as mine (e.g. enjoyment of creating and interest in his creations).

DAVID: You will never understand the approach I use. I can never know God's personal reasoning, but I accept all of reality as His creation. That should make sense to all.

Yet more word games. If God exists, none of us can know his personal reasoning, but all of us would have to accept that all of “reality” is his creation, reality being the world as we know it. What do not make sense to you or to me (but “only to God”) are your combined theories about his purpose and his method of achieving his purpose, as bolded over and over again.

DAVID: I don't have any idea where you start. What is your initial premise about God?

If God exists, my initial premises are that he would have had a purpose for creating life, and the history of life as we know it would logically reflect his purpose, which in turn would reflect his nature. The importance of this discussion for me is that if God exists, I would like to know as much as possible about his nature and his attitude towards his creations (especially us humans). No one can know the objective truth, but at least we can extrapolate theories from the reality we know, and we can test their feasibility by using the same human reasoning that enables us to formulate those theories in the first place. You use human reasoning to support your belief in your God’s existence, but when human reasoning shows the flaws in your theories about his purpose, method and nature, you turn your back on it.