Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, September 15, 2022, 12:02 (587 days ago) @ David Turell

Ecosystem importance

DAVID: Why shouldn't an all-powerful God keep total control?

dhw: The question is not “why shouldn’t he?” but “did he?” and “did he want to?”

DAVID: You have reduced the discussion to a human level while God is not human. History is what God produced. What we see is exactly what He wanted.

Why is it not human to propose that your God wanted total control, but human to propose that he did not?

DAVID: I have shown you the structure of our food supply.

You have merely pointed out that all organisms, including ourselves, have always needed food. Most past organisms and ecosystems came to a dead end, i.e. did not lead to us and our ecosystem. Even current ecosystems may not be geared to us, as follows:
DAVID (re "immortal jellyfish"): dhw will ask why these exist. They fit into their ecosystem.

Their ecosystem, not ours. All of which makes nonsense of your claim that every organism and every ecosystem that ever existed, including all the “dead ends”, was specially designed by your God as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for H. sapiens and our current ecosystems.

DAVID: I have demonstrated humans as an extraordinary endpoint. You pick this apart by presenting your very humanized form of a God, who experiments, enjoys free-for-alls, etc.

I have no problem with humans as AN (but not THE) extraordinary endpoint. Elephants, camels and immortal jellyfish are also extraordinary endpoints. The brontosaurus WAS an extraordinary endpoint – but he came to a dead end. No connection with us or our ecosystems. And yet you say all dead ends were specially designed as “absolute requirements” for us and our ecosystems – a theory which makes no sense to anyone except, apparently, God. And please stop moaning when I propose logical theistic theories which explain the history of life but entail human patterns of thought etc., although you agree that he probably/possibly has patterns of thought etc. in common with ours. And please stop pretending that you do not impose human patterns of thought in your own opinions that he enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, is too kind to wish us harm, wants us to admire his work and have a relationship with him. Why are your “humanizing” guesses permissible, whereas mine, which lead to logical explanations of life’s history, are not?

DAVID: We cannot know God's reasons but must analyze His works. You and I seem to have a total disagreement about how to view those works. The discussion of food supply goes back to Malthus!!

I have no problem with the obvious statement that every organism needs food. Apparently Malthus (1766-1834) advocated birth control, as food supplies would never be enough to satisfy demand. Hardly a ringing endorsement of your illogical theory as bolded above. I don’t know why you’ve brought him into it anyway – if your theory makes no sense to you (but only to God), why would it make sense to anyone else?

DAVID: God must have His own way of creating for His own reasons. We see He evolved whatever he wished to create. Yes, or no? What He created are endpoints. Yes, or no?

Yes, if he exists, he had his own way for his own reasons, but your way and your reasons make no sense to you or to me. Yes, if he exists, he used evolution as his way of fulfilling his wishes, and yes, every individual was and is an endpoint – and most of them were dead-end endpoints. You’re getting the message. We are just one of millions and millions of endpoints, most of which had no connection with us, which is why you tell us that your anthropocentric theory makes no sense to anyone, except your God.

DAVID: I see nothing human in my version of God.

See above for a now bolded list of your own theoretical humanizations.

DAVID: His thought patterns, logic, and emotions must be allegorically discussed, since He is a person like no other person.

“Allegorical” has no meaning here. There is no reason at all why attributes like enjoyment, interest, kindness, love, admiration etc. should not mean the same to the creator as they mean to us, since he would have invented them. That does not mean that the possible creator of the universe and life is a human being!

DAVID: Your 'making sense' complaint is totally illogical. I accept reality as God's creation. I analyze it for His possible reasoning.

If he exists, then of course “reality” is his creation. Your analysis for his possible reasoning leads you to tell us that (a) you can’t know his reasoning, and (b) your analysis “makes sense only to God”, i.e. not to you. Please stop blaming me for your own admission!

DAVID: I've offered my views from the point of seeing God as totally purposeful. You don't like that form of God.

I have always agreed that your God would be totally purposeful. The form of God I don’t like is one who despite his all-powerfulness and total purposefulness achieves your idea of his purpose by designing countless organisms that had no connection with his purpose. I prefer to think of God as a logical being whose entire work would correspond to his purpose. You don’t like that form of God.