Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, September 25, 2022, 08:26 (788 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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: It may or may not.

You are making a mockery of language.

dhw: 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.)

DAVID: God may create and not need self-enjoyment or self-interest in what He has created.

If you enjoy something, it means you get pleasure from it. You have said you are sure your God gets pleasure from creating. What is "self-enjoyment"? Do you mean your God doesn't need to masturbate? “Self-interest” means that you only care about yourself and do not care about anyone else – nothing whatsoever to with paying attention to something because you want to know what will happen to it, what it will do or become or create or show you or teach you etc.

dhw: Do you disagree that the only being qualified to tell us how to think about/imagine God is God himself, if he exists?

DAVID: We are discussing the human level! God won't tell us about Himself. There are philosophers who have given much thought to the problem and a good place to start one's thinking.

Apparently they have taught you that your God is in full control, enjoys creation, is interested in what he creates etc., but none of these words may mean what we mean by them. Presumably this applies to every statement anyone makes about your God, and since nobody can possibly know the truth anyway, there is no point in discussing his possible nature, purpose and methods. And there are hundreds of philosophers who all agree with you and with one another.

dhw: […] 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: […] I continue to view it as a very strained comparison. Show me a cell that has a mind.

I have never used the word “mind”, which is closely associated with “brain”. Some eminent scientists have concluded from their studies that cells are “cognitive (sentient) entities” and “possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities” (Shapiro), all of which are the hallmarks of autonomous intelligence. You don’t have to believe it. I’m simply asking why you think your God could not possibly have wanted to create such entities.

DAVID: It makes perfect sense to conclude God prefers to evolve everything as evidence shows. Are you blind to it?

dhw: […] 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.

DAVID: You are confused: what makes sense only to God are His reasons for choosing to evolve everything, nothing more. I have established the historical facts that support that theory.

We both support the theory that evolution happened,and I suspect there have been scientists before you who established the historical facts that support the theory of evolution. But (a), (b) and (c) are not facts, and they contradict one another. And you have said that you can’t explain the contradictions – God has his reasons and we can’t know them!

DAVID: As for the Cambrian, a designer can jump steps whenever He wishes.

Of course, but according to you, we and much of our food are directly descended from organisms that God chose to design without precursors (i.e. they did not “evolve”), and this contradicts your belief that we and our food were his sole purpose right from the start. And so you tell us that your theory “makes sense only to God”.

DAVID: As for God's purpose to produce humans, the presence of human is used to prove God in that natural evolution is not capable of producing us.

So are you now saying that “natural evolution” (by which I presume you mean evolution that is not controlled by your God, though control may not mean control) IS capable of producing trilobites, dinosaurs, moas and elephants? All of them can be used to “prove” that God exists, and that is not the point at issue. You simply use it in order to dodge all the contradictions I have listed.