Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, September 30, 2022, 08:52 (783 days ago) @ David Turell

Nature of God

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.

dhw: 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: That God is a very different personage does not mean we can't analyze and debate.

We can’t analyze and debate if you tell us that the words you use, such as “full control”, “enjoyment”, “interest”, might not mean the same to your God as they do to us.

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

dhw: 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: Whatever God produced, God considered required to continue His evolution of humans. How many times must I show that dead ends were part of ecosystems needed at that stage in evolution.
And:
DAVID: God did what He had to do to create humans. Accept that premise and your confusion will disappear.

You keep agreeing that the dead ends were part of ecosystems which were required for the life forms that existed at that time but by definition did NOT lead to us and our food. No, I cannot accept that your God “had to” create countless dead ends which had no connection with humans, solely in order to create humans (plus our food). That doesn’t make sense to me or to you (it “makes sense only to God”). Accept that your premise is senseless and therefore either his purpose or his actions must have been different from those you impose on him. Then “your confusion will disappear”.

Design and purpose and dead ends

Yet more repetition here, but leading to a sensational conclusion.

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: Time passes in evolution. Each stage has its requirements.

We agree, though I’m suspicious of the word “stage” here. A dead end is a final stage – it leads nowhere. Let’s stick to each ecosystem has its requirements.

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: I didn't drop God as designing all at every stage.

You didn’t mention it, but in any case you have dropped the illogical theory that your God “had to” design every dead end in order to design us and our food. Congratulations on your new insight!