Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, September 24, 2022, 08:46 (579 days ago) @ David Turell

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?

DAVID: Not implied at all.

So when you say God is in full control of everything, but God may see things in a totally different viewpoint, what might “full control” mean if it doesn’t mean what you and I mean by “full control”?

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.

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

So when you say you are sure he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, why do you think his feelings of enjoyment and interest can’t be like ours, and can’t constitute a purpose for creating life? (Please don’t change the terms ”enjoy” and “interest”, as these are the words you have used.)

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?

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.

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

I am not doubting your reading capacity. I have asked you three bolded questions. Do you disagree that the only being qualified to tell us how to think about/imagine God is God himself, if he exists? Please answer.

DAVID: 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.

DAVID: 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.

And you’ve missed the point before, which is: if your God wanted to create autonomous humans, why do you insist that he could not possibly have wanted to create autonomous cells? The principle is the same: he did not WANT to control humans. So maybe he did not WANT to control cells.

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:: 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.

DAVID: 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?

Stop dodging! We both accept evolution as a fact, and if God exists of course it makes perfect sense that he wanted evolution. But that does not mean (a) that his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, or (b) that he designed every life form individually, or (c) that every life form and ecosystem that had no connection with us and our food was an “absolute requirement” for us and our food, and (d) according to you he did NOT evolve everything anyway, because you keep telling us that he designed Cambrian species that had no precursors. You also keep telling us you can’t find any reason for this illogical combination of beliefs, and you don’t have to, because you know it’s right and God has his reasons. The statement that your combined theories “make sense only to God” makes it perfectly clear that they do not make sense to you, so please stop dodging.