Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, October 16, 2022, 12:51 (549 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We have to analyze God from what He created. And you are agreeing what is here is what he wanted. Now imagination sets in; what kind of God do you accept? Mine is fully purposeful.

So is mine.

DAVID: Everything He created is required and He knows all outcomes as He evolves creations.

Is required for what? (See below) Why do you assume he knows all outcomes? If the outcome is already fixed, then you are an advocate of predestination, which is yet another dilemma for theists who, like yourself, also believe in free will. It is perfectly feasible that a God who, as you have said, is interested in his creations (ALL his creations) would find it more interesting NOT to know all outcomes.

DAVID: That view can be logically applied to the known history. And since very extraordinary humans arrived, we were His goal or purpose. That is Adler's teaching using evolution as I do, as God's creation.

But according to you, your God designed EVERY form of life, and EVERY form of life “arrived”, so EVERY form of life must have been part of his goal or purpose. That includes EVERY form of life that had no connection with us, our food and our current ecosystems, and so EVERY form of life, extant and extinct, could NOT have been “required” for the one and only purpose you allow him (the design of us, our food and our current ecosystems). Please stop clinging to Adler. We are discussing your theories, and Adler as far as I know was not God.

DAVID: You offer a different God who also presents the same evolution but prefers entertainment, experiments, wants free-for-all evolution with no set outcome. He has the same dead ends as mine as cast aside ecosystems. You can excuse the dead ends, because your God doesn't have a definite end point. And then complain about mine because He does.

My alternatives all explain (not excuse) the dead ends for which you have no explanation! I complain because (a) you admit that it is illogical for your God to have a single purpose (us and our current ecosystems) and then to proceed to design countless life forms etc. that had no connection with us and our ecosystems, and (b) you believe in direct creation (the Cambrian), and admit that it is illogical for him to have created his one and only goal (sapiens) in stages: these theories “make sense only to God”, i.e. not to you, but you still cling to them, and blame me for pointing out why they do not make sense.

DAVID: Your complaint settles down to: we know He does direct creations, so why does he evolve His goals…..

We don't know he "does direct creations", but that is part of your muddled theory (see (b) above). Why plural goals, when you insist that he only had one – us and our ecosystems?

DAVID: ….which in evolution involve all sorts of side branches? We cannot ask Him, nor can we know His reasoning. What we do know is everything He creates, He has evolved. Evolution is His choice of action. Nothing I have presented is illogical.

If we cannot know his reasoning, then please stop assuming that you know both his purpose and his method of achieving that purpose, even though the method does not fit in logically with the purpose. How can what you have presented be logical if you can’t understand the reasoning behind what you assume to be your God’s goal and method of achieving it?