Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, September 29, 2022, 11:16 (569 days ago) @ David Turell

Nature of God

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?

dhw: 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.

DAVID: I've given you patterns of philosophic thought about God and religion. All you do is combat them. These are not silly word games but considerations as to how one should think about God.

Among the patterns you have given me are that God is in full control, enjoys creating, and is interested in his creations, probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions and logic like our own, and is kind. But apparently when we think about God, none of these words may mean the same to him as they do to us, which therefore suggests there is no point in your offering us any patterns.

DAVID: As for my theories about God's works, they are separate from the debate about how to think about God's personality.

The two overlap. A God who wants full control = personality; a God who fully controls every step of evolution refers to his works. Your theories about God’s works incorporate a subjective interpretation of his purpose and his method. Purpose: to design H. sapiens and his food; method: to design countless extinct life forms and foods, the vast majority of which were dead ends that did not lead to H. sapiens and his foods but which you claim were “absolute requirements” for the production of H. sapiens and his foods. You cannot find any explanation for this totally illogical theory, which is why I “combat” your theories on how to think about God and how to interpret his work.

DAVID: And I note you still haven't answered the question, are there any supporting authorities you have for your positions?

My answer has been that there are no “authorities” for any position. Only God – if he exists – can be an authority on his own personality and his purpose and method. I have not read any books on the subject of “how to think about God”, but I have a dear friend who has read loads and loads of them, and so I discuss the subject with him and question his authority. Nor have I read any books by McClintock, Margulis, Bühler or Shapiro, but largely thanks to my friend I know that they all believe(d) – the first two are dead now – in the theory of cellular intelligence. The theory that God designed life and then let it run its course is taken over from deism, and that God learns as he goes along is extrapolated from process theology. I have no idea if anyone else has proposed that God may have experimented in order to fulfil what you believe to have been his one and only purpose (to create us): I came up with it in my quest to find a logical explanation for your own theory, which otherwise makes no sense to you or me.

Design and purpose and dead ends

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

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

DAVID: Everything God produces is a requirement in His eyes.

Agreed. But obviously not a requirement for the design of H. sapiens and our food, so he must have had another purpose for designing them, or maybe he did not design them but they were part of a free-for-all which he engineered by designing the intelligent cell. Possible purpose: to enjoy creating something that would interest him. Just a theory, of course.

DAVID (under “More miscellany”): Past ecosystems fed past animals. With advances to new forms new ecosystems appeared, and old ones faded away as dead ends. Pure evolution at work through time.

An excellent description. Thank you for at last dropping your illogical theory that all past dead-end ecosystems and animals were individually designed by your God as “absolute requirements” for the individual design of H. sapiens and our ecosystems.