Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Friday, September 16, 2022, 16:18 (580 days ago) @ dhw

Human side of God

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.

dhw: 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?

I do not have divine thoughts. That is impossible.

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.

dhw: 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.

Read Adler for yourself. He was anthropocentric in thought as I am. My theories are Adler and ID. I am not an autodidact in theology thought, are you?

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.

dhw: 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.

Is evolution a contiuum or not???

DAVID: Your usual. Adler used us to prove God, we are that special.

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

Adler discussed the process of evolution and used our evolution in his proof. Stop discussing Adler from ignorance,

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.

dhw: 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!

Back to Adler: our specialness shows God's purpose.