Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Wednesday, September 21, 2022, 18:20 (792 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You miss the point. God's view of control may not be ours.

dhw: You miss the point. “Control” is not allegorical or figurative. I have defined “control” for you. The dispute is over what your God wanted to do and did do. Now please tell us why your belief that your God wanted to and did have “full control” over evolution is not human, whereas my theory that he did not want “full control” but gave autonomous control to his creations is human. (And please note your self-contradiction in “More Miscellany” PART ONE, which I will highlight.)

We cannot know how God thinks. We can imagine it is like how we do it. That is where you are wrong. In regard to 'control', in my view it relates to how purposeful God is. As before I view God as directly creating with no self-interest or reflection involved. You can try to make my God human as we must use human terms, but I see Him only in non-human terms, again, allegorically.

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

dhw: 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: Exactly!!! We can only be figurative. Please stick to that proper reasoning.

dhw: There is nothing “figurative” in our guesses. Control, free-for-all, enjoyment, interest, kindness are not symbols for something else! And your comment has nothing to do with your extraordinary belief that a human being can be an authority on how to think about God.

How to think about God is one side of the coin. How you imagine God is the other side, related but very different. I think you are mixing it up.

DAVID: God, as creator, had a purpose for everything He made appear!!

dhw: Of course he did, but that does not mean that he purposefully designed every single life form and ecosystem!

A total non-sequitur. Either He designs everything, or He doesn't. Which is it?

dhw: He may have wanted a free-for-all, and so by giving cells autonomous intelligence he would have got what he wanted. He may have wanted to create a being who would recognize him and admire his work (your terms) and may have experimented in order to get what he wanted – that is also purposeful. Or he may have set out as some humans do, to see where different experiments might lead him, and eventually have come up with a great idea: humans. Again, this is purposeful. But it doesn’t fit in with your idea of a God who knows everything and is always in full control (which is not an allegory).

Of course, it doesn't. Purposeful at a human level of desire.

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

dhw: 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! […]

I don't need to know His reasoning!!! And no one can know it,

DAVID: You can't know God's reasoning any more than I can. WE can only analyze what HE produced.

dhw: Correct. And your analysis has produced theories that make no sense to you.[…]

I don't need to know His reasoning!!! And no one can know it,