Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, September 16, 2022, 07:51 (797 days ago) @ David Turell

Human side of God

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

DAVID: We are discussing God's personality. I do not propose a humanized God. You do and have the right to do so. God is not human in any way. You are confusing human thought with God thought.

Why is it “God thought” to want full control and “human thought” not to want full control? Why are your thoughts about God divine and mine only human? Why do you agree that God probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions and logic similar to ours, but insist that he doesn’t? I listed some of your human thoughts about God yesterday:

dhw... 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: My guesses about God's personality are not substantive. We don't know His personality, only His works to analyze.
And later:
DAVID: God is in no way human. Read Adler!!!
And:
DAVID: He is a person like no other person.

Nobody’s guesses are "substantive", but please stop pretending you know that “God is not human in any way”, when you agree that he probably/possibly has human thought patterns etc. and you even guess which ones he might have. A “person” with all the human characteristics you have attributed to your God but who also created life and the universe and does not have arms, legs, eyes, or a brain will be a “person like no other person”. If you can’t find any defence in Adler for your illogical, anthropocentric theories of evolution, please stop pretending that he can give me the answers you can’t give me.

DAVID: You have no concept of how Adler teaches me to think about God!!!

If he teaches you to devise theories which “make sense only to God”, and therefore not to you or to him, then you are welcome to blame him for your illogicality.

Ecosystems

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

dhw: You have merely pointed out that all organisms, including ourselves, have always needed food. 1) Most past organisms (e.g. our beloved brontosaurus) and ecosystems came to a dead end, i.e. did not lead to us and our ecosystem. […]

DAVID: As usual you drop out the past as not leading directly to the future. All ecosystems are interlocking.

As a description of time, the past leads to the future. 2) But how can every organism (e.g. our beloved brontosaurus) and ecosystem which came to a dead end, i.e. which did NOT lead to us or our food – be “interlocking” with our current systems as “absolute requirements” in preparation for us and our food? You have no idea and your theory makes sense only to God.

DAVID: The discussion of food supply goes back to Malthus!!
And:
DAVID: Malthus worry about food supply is present today. Remember my entries!

The fact that, like Malthus, we are worried about food supply does not mean that Malthus tells us 3) his God designed every dead-end organism (e,g, our beloved brontosaurus) and ecosystem, and that all those which did not lead to us and our ecosystems were essential to enable him to design us and our ecosystems.

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?

dhw: 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...4) We are just one of millions and millions of endpoints (e.g. our beloved brontosaurus), 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: Your usual. Adler used us to prove God, we are that special.

For the thousandth time we are not arguing about proving God but about your illogical theories of evolution which Adler apparently never discusses.

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

dhw: I have always agreed that your God would be totally purposeful. The form of God I don’t like is one 5) who despite his all-powerfulness and total purposefulness achieves your idea of his purpose by designing countless organisms [e.g. our beloved brontosaurus] 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.

DAVID: Again, applying your human logic poorly. My logic tells me all of those God-created organisms were required to be created since they exist.

If God created all of them, then of course he wanted to create all of them. But that doesn’t mean 6) his only purpose was to create us and our food, and therefore all those which he created and which had no connection with us and our food [e.g. our beloved brontosaurus] must have been connected with us and our food though you can’t think how. Repeated six times, but still you keep dodging!