Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, October 17, 2022, 13:30 (556 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.

dhw: So is mine.

DAVID: His purposes involve entertaining Himself.

And later:

More humanizing of your vision of God. It is an example of how you write your fiction.

I have never used the word “entertain” but have stuck to your own terms: you are certain that he “enjoys” creating and is “interested” in his creations. Why are you sneering at your own beliefs, which include your agreement that your God probably/possibly has patterns of thought and emotions like ours?

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

dhw: 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.

DAVID: What God knows about His goals does not affect my free will.

If God knows “all outcomes”, he knows what is going to happen to his creations, and he knows what decisions individual humans are going to take (some of which may well affect the future of the world, since even individuals are capable of destroying it). In that case, free will is an illusion - hence the theological problem of predestination.

DAVID: You agree God can create anything He wishes! What we see is exactly what God did. Everything IS connected to us in the ecosystems we use for food. And those ecosystems, the experts say are becoming inadequate. That means all parts are required.

Yet again, you are focusing on our current ecosystems, and ignoring the history of life which produced countless extinct life forms and ecosystems which had no connection with humans and our current ecosystems and foods, although you claim that your God created all the dead ends as an absolute requirement for the fulfilment of his only purpose, which was to create us and our current ecosystems and foods. The fact that we are destroying our current ecosystems is totally irrelevant to your theories about your God’s past actions and single purpose, which are so illogical that you say they “make sense only to God”, i.e. not to you.

dhw: My alternatives all explain (not excuse) the dead ends for which you have no explanation!

DAVID: Remember, we both have Gods with dead ends. They are previously ecosystems no longer needed.

The dead ends were NEVER needed to fulfil your idea of your God’s one and only purpose, and you admit that you have no idea why he designed them – hence your statement that your theories “make sense only to God”.

DAVID: Of course, God makes no sense to you. You constantly transform Him into a tunnel-visioned bumbler, who creates lots of unnecessary organisms on the way to His desired outcome, humans.

It is not your God who makes no sense to me, but your theories, which you admit make no sense to YOU! It is YOU who have created a tunnel-visioned bumbler etc., exactly as you describe him above!

DAVID: I have given you a reasonable answer. He chose to evolve us from bacteria. As for goal, humans are a most unexpected form of naturally occurring evolution. They must be God-produced. (Adler logic) Your human logic is not God's logic.

Unexpected by whom? ALL of life – not just humans – is so complex that you use individual organs (see today’s post on the ear) and individual cells as evidence for your God’s existence, and I have no argument against the case you make for design. So please stop dodging the fact that we are assuming God’s existence in our discussions, and the disagreement concerns YOUR humanly illogical vision of him as a “tunnel-visioned bumbler”.