Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Friday, September 23, 2022, 19:52 (790 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We cannot know how God thinks. We can imagine it is like how we do it. That is where you are wrong.

dhw: There seems to be no point in any discussion about your God, since apparently our words might not mean what we both think they mean.

DAVID: We must understand God may see things in a totally different viewpoint.

dhw: You wrote: “God’s view of control may not be ours”, and so when you say your God is in full control of evolution, do you think it might mean he is not in full control of evolution?

Not implied at all.

DAVID: We must use human terms as we describe God's possible thoughts or actions. What you can't seem to remember, I view God as a personage like no other person.

dhw: Since your God is an eternal, immaterial, sourceless, super-intelligent mind which can create universes and life, I don’t think many people would regard him as a person just like us. However, if he is a “personage”, then it is perfectly possible that he will have created “personal” attributes in us which reflect his own “personal” attributes.

But not reflect as in mirrored. Similarities in some way.

dhw: How can any human being tell us how to think about or imagine God? Why is your belief that God wants total control and has no self-interest (a) not human, and (b) the right way to think about/imagine God?[/b]

DAVID: Read Adler's book. As a respected philosopher of religion his thinking must hold weight.

dhw: If you cannot answer my questions, please don’t tell me somebody else can.

I have a guide in how I think about God. Your bold is my conclusion after years of study and reading over 100 books.

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!

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

dhw: We don’t know.

DAVID: You don't know, and your retraction shows your view of God is a muddle of yes He designs and no He doesn't, so some ecosystems just arrived on their own!

dhw: What retraction? Your question demands an all or nothing. I have offered you a theistic theory in which your God designs the basic units of life and endows them with the ability to do their own designing. The most obvious example of this autonomy is human beings, but you refuse to believe that he is capable of designing cells with the autonomous ability to make changes to themselves.

The autonomy of humans is not an equivalent to cell functional abilities. You've used this before and it is equivalent to comparing horses to oranges

dhw: You don’t invalidate the theory by claiming that God must design everything himself or nothing at all! As for ecosystems, they consist of the animals and plants in particular areas, and the way in which they are related to one another and to their environment. You are tying yourself in knots over your uncertainty as to the degree of control your God exercises over environments (see “More miscellany, PART ONE). To quote you: “either he designs everything or he doesn’t.” And you think my view is a “muddle”!

Answered in PART ONE.

DAVID: My analysis comes from the concept of an all-powerful God who knows exactly what He wants to do and does it. A marked concept from your very humanized God who changes course, has to experiment and loves to enjoy free-for-alls.

dhw: Your analysis results in the concept of a God who only wants to design H. sapiens and his food, and proceeds to design countless life forms and foods that have no connection with H. sapiens and his food. Your theory makes no sense to you. The above list of alternatives, on the contrary, makes perfect sense to you. In fact, you also have him changing course if you think he might have chucked Chixculub at the dinosaurs, but in any case wanting full control is no less human than wanting a free-for-all, he does not “have to” experiment but chooses to do so, and there is no reason at all why your certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations should not constitute a purpose for his creating life in the first place, and what is wrong with creating and enjoying an interesting free-for-all? In brief, your one and only theory concerning your God’s purpose and method makes no sense to you or to me, you agree that my own theories are perfectly logical, and your only two objections are that your “humanizations” of God are not as human as mine, and mine are wrong because nobody can know the truth.

Stop declaring it makes no sense to me. It makes perfect sense to conclude God prefers to evolve everything as evidence shows. Are you blind to it?