Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Monday, September 19, 2022, 17:19 (794 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: […] please explain why the desire for full control is not human, whereas a desire to create autonomous beings is human.

DAVID: God's 'full control' is a way of saying God maintains full control of His creations always. It is an allegorical thought on our part because that aspect of God's non-human personality may not represent desire.

dhw: I have no idea what you mean by “allegorical”.

Essentially 'figurative: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/allegory

dhw: I suggest that if God has a purpose, then that purpose is what he wants or desires. And I wish you’d stop playing word games. Wanting full control is just as human as not wanting full control.

Of course, God desires to create His purposes. But remember they are God's desires, not equivalent to our lesser human desires

DAVID: Same old discussion from you. 1) Adler taught me how to think about God.

dhw: How does Adler know that God is not human in any way, though he probably has thought patterns and emotions in common with us?

DAVID: Adler is a famous philosopher of theology. What is your authority for your thoughts about God?

dhw: Dawkins is a famous scientist and philosopher of atheism. So what? Nobody is an “authority” for thoughts about God. Please stop pretending that someone you agree with must be right because he is famous.

So you have no authority but yourself? Adler is an authority to teach "how to think about God{", his book!

DAVID: Old ecosystems supported old bushes of life. Evolution is an advancing set of systems. Why do you dwell on the past constantly when we now live in the evolved ecosystems of the present provided by God to serve the huge human population He anticipated.

dhw: I dwell on the past because you tell us your God’s only purpose was to produce us and our present ecosystems, but you also tell us he individually designed every PAST organism and ecosystem as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our present ecosystems, although the vast majority of them did not lead to us and our ecosystems. This is so illogical that it “makes sense only to God”. Why do you dwell on the obvious fact that we now live in our current ecosystems? Look at this entry:

ecosystem importance: microplastic danger

DAVID: we inherited an evolved food chain of interlocking ecosystems, in which we are creating dangers. Those systems come from all the diversity in the current bush of life, evolved from all past bushes of life. Planned for human use by God.

dhw: Yes, we are creating dangers, the current forms of life form the current ecosystems, and all life forms and past bushes evolved from past life forms and past bushes. But NOT from ALL past life forms and ALL past bushes! The vast majority of them were dead ends which did NOT lead to us, and yet you say they were individually designed as “ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENTS” for us and our ecosystems!

If they existed, they were created by God purposefully.

DAVID: 3) you have no concept of a designer. He can produce in simple steps or giant jumps (Cambrian) at His will. […]

dhw: I have no doubt that your God could produce in simple steps or giant jumps at his will. And that is why I am asking you why you think he chose to design H. sapiens – who you say was his one and only purpose right from the start of life – in itsy-bitsy stages. Your answer is that you don’t know.

DAVID: And my reasonable response is He chose to evolve us in stages. And I gave you evidence of His preferences: He evolved the universe from the BB. the Earth for life from its beginning and evolved life. Stop ignoring the evidence!! I do know!!!

dhw: Yes, the universe and we evolved in stages! That is not the issue, which is your combination of theories: IF your God’s one and only purpose from the start was to produce H. sapiens, and IF your God was capable of designing species without predecessors (Cambrian), WHY do you think he designed us in itsy-bitsy stages? Maybe one of your IFs is wrong!

Why can't you accept the logical answer: God chose to evolve us for His own reasons

DAVID: Can you offer us any authority on agnosticism philosophy besides yourself?

dhw: No. I do not believe that there is any “authority” on theism, atheism, or agnosticism. […]

DAVID: You are your own authority. I'm not.

dhw: I have no authority whatsoever. Nor do you, and nor did Adler, and nor does Dawkins. The only authority on God and how to think about God is God, if he exists. Now please get on with discussing the arguments.

You obviously don't think about God as I do. All of His actions must be described figuratively in human terms, because we are forced to do so. Since He is God, we can only try to compare Him to us. He must have a mind as we do, but His mind must have powers we can only imagine. You want God to desire free-for-alls, to experiment, to change His mind and shift course. That is all your human thinking about God. I don't accept that humanized version of God.