Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, September 20, 2022, 11:12 (576 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

Allegorical: “A representation of an abstract or a spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another.”
“A symbolic narrative”.

“Full control” is not a concrete or material form or a figurative treatment or a symbol.. Control means making something happen the way you want it to happen.

dhw: I suggest that if God has a purpose, then that purpose is what he wants or desires.[…].

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

Why is a divine desire to make things happen the way he wants them to happen not equivalent to a human desire to make things happen the way we want them to happen? And why is wanting control less human than not wanting control? You are making a mockery of language.

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.

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

I have no authority. Nor do you, Adler, Dawkins or Dennett. If God exists, the only “authority” on how to think about him is God himself.

DAVID: […] 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? […]

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 current life forms and bushes evolved from past life forms and past bushes. But they did NOT evolve from ALL past life forms and ALL past bushes! [See bold above.[

DAVID: If they existed, they were created by God purposefully.

Maybe, but if he purposefully created life forms and bushes that had no connection with H. sapiens plus bushes, then his one and only purpose cannot have been to create H. sapiens plus bushes. You agree. Your theory “makes sense only to God”, i.e. not to you. Stop dodging!

DAVID: […] 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 was to produce H. sapiens, and IF your God could design species without predecessors (Cambrian), WHY do you think he designed us in itsy-bitsy stages? Maybe one of your IFs is wrong!

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

And you cannot think of any reasons!!! So I offer you logical alternatives, but you reject them all because they do not fit in with your preconceived ideas about your God! […]

DAVID […] 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.

Of course! We can’t create universes, and we can’t create consciousness or bacteria or any other living organism. But that needn’t stop him from having thought patterns, emotions and logic in common with ours, as you keep agreeing.

DAVID: 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.

You accept a “humanized” version of God who acts in a manner which makes no sense to you, and you reject my logical alternatives because they involve thought patterns and emotions which in some cases (not all) are different from those you believe in.