Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, October 19, 2022, 08:51 (764 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I didn't say 'all outcomes', you did! God has goals and knows how to reach them does not imply God knows my thoughts in the next month. Stop distorting.

dhw: Your exact words were: “Everything He created is required and He knows all outcomes as He evolves creations.” I also note your continued use of the plural “goals”, although you insist that your God had only one goal, which was to design us and the ecosystems which provide us with our food. There is no distortion on my part.

DAVID: And you assumed predestination for human thought and action.

Aw shucks, David, you accused me of distortion and denied having used the expression “all outcomes”. At least pronounce me not guilty! And I simply pointed out that if he knows all outcomes, then that leads to the problem of predestination versus free will. I did not assume anything. And I wish you would not keep referring to plural goals when you insist that your God only had one (us and our food).

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.

dhw: 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've admitted nothing of the sort. Stop distorting what I write.

If your theory "makes sense only to God", and we can't know his reasons for doing what you say he did, then it doesn't make sense to you!

dhw: Your God is tunnel-visioned because you insist he could only possibly have had one purpose: to design us and our food. And your God is a bumbler, because in order to fulfil his only purpose, you have him designing countless life forms and ecosystems that have no connection with it! I offer alternative interpretations (the opposite of tunnel vision): maybe he wanted a free-for-all; maybe he did want us but was experimenting to find the right formula; maybe like many creative artists he kept getting new ideas as he went along and eventually hit on the idea of humans. Each of these alternatives provides a logical explanation for the dead ends and for the different stages of our own evolution.

DAVID: Don't you realize the complete humanized God you are describing?

None of these versions make your God completely humanized. They entail human thought patterns and emotions and logic, some of which you yourself subscribe to (e.g. enjoyment and interest), and they all provide explanations for the dead ends you are unable to explain. Meanwhile, you appear to have overlooked the fact that it is your humanized God who is tunnel-visioned (only one possible purpose) and who bumbles along, creating “lots of unnecessary organisms on the way to his desired outcome, humans”.

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.

dhw: Unexpected by whom?

DAVID: By any clear-thinking human.

dhw: Any “clear-thinking human”, according to you, will also say that every form of life is “unexpected”, so why do you use that argument in your attempt to prove that humans were your God’s one and only purpose?

DAVID: Unexpected is our human brain. It is Adler's point and mine.

And “unexpected” according to you is every form of life, and every natural wonder (e.g. the weaverbird’s nest), all of which are so complex that they provide evidence of your God’s existence. But they still leave your God as a humanized, tunnel-visioned bumbler, in contrast to the alternatives I have presented.