Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, September 28, 2022, 13:43 (568 days ago) @ David Turell

Nature of God

dhw: […] What might “full control” mean if it doesn’t mean what you and I mean by “full control”?

DAVID: It may or may not.[…]

dhw: […] You are pretending you don’t know if the terms man what you think they mean. Please stop playing silly word games.

DAVID: It is not silly games. It is a philosophical point that God is not human and human terms do not aptly apply.

dhw: You don’t need to be a philosopher to realize that an eternal, immaterial, sourceless mind which creates a universe is not human. If you wish to discuss its purpose, methods and nature, it is impossible to do so without using “human terms”, and why shouldn’t we? For example, when you say your God has “full control”, we both know you mean God making something happen the way he wants it to happen.... Why does this not “aptly apply”? If the terms you use don’t mean what we both think they mean, there is no point in any discussion of God’s purpose, method and nature. Is that what Adler and other religious philosophers have taught you?

DAVID: Of course, we must discuss Him in our terms. It is all we have. But at the same time, we must do it realizing, we do not know to what extent those terms actually apply to God. Have you read about the philosophy of how to think about God to provide a background for your position?

If God exists, then of course we don’t know if God is in full control, or enjoys creating, or is interested in us. But we do know what these words mean.So please stop playing silly word games. And please stop pretending that my criticism of your illogical thinking is the result of my not having read the books you have read. If you have found the answers, then please let us have them.

dhw: […] do you agree or disagree that the only being qualified to tell us how to think about/imagine God is God himself, if he exists?

DAVID: He is and tells us through His works.

And so we interpret his works to create our theories about his possible purposes, methods and nature. And your interpretations have yielded theories which “make sense only to God”, i.e. not to you or me. One of them is bolded below.

Design and purpose

dhw: And cells, as we know from some eminent scientists, can be viewed as autonomously intelligent entities, and if your God designed them as such because he WANTED a free-for-all, who are you to say he is not a good designer? In your own theory, he only WANTS to create H. sapiens plus food, but before he does so, he designs countless dead-end species and foods that have no connection with his one and only purpose. Is that what you call a “good” designer?

DAVID: God is a great designer. You criticize His approach, but it worked. We are here.
And later:
You are discussing God's design of evolution, and as a designer everything appearing is His wish. God did it His way, not your way.

If God exists, of course he is a great designer, and of course what appears is his wish, and of course he did it his way. But we don’t know his wish or his way! What worked? Yes, we are here, along with countless other forms of life, and countless forms of life WERE here and are no longer here, and I assume that they were just as much a product of his wishes and his approach as we are. But you say that they were all designed only as preparation for us and our food, whereas you also say they were dead ends that had no connection with us and our food. I can’t see how your illogical theory makes him a “good” designer, whereas my logical alternatives make him a “bad” designer, and I am not criticizing his unknown approach, but am criticizing the illogicality of your own.

.DAVID: Dead ends were part of ecosystems no longer necessary as species become extinct.

Exactly. So obviously they were necessary for extinct forms, but were not “absolute requirements” that were "necessary" in preparation for us and our food.