Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Wednesday, March 15, 2023, 17:31 (617 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The free-for-all theory: He doesn’t rely on them to speciate - he designs them so that they can speciate. “Entertainment” is your choice of trivialising terminology. Our own love/enjoyment of creation, curiosity concerning what might happen if we explore the potential of our inventions, learning as we go along, finding different methods to achieve the optimum version of our goals, might all mirror what you have called his own “patterns of thought and emotions” and indeed logic.

DAVID: Once again you apply human thought to God's possible thinking pattern. I view it as trivializing God.

dhw: In your topsy-turvy theory, you humanize God to such an extent that you compare his evolution to that of our own inventions, claiming that ours consist of 99% errors,

I have never said human evolutions of inventions have a 99% error rate. Yes, there is a trial and error rate, but much lower generally.

dhw: Crazy! And you are quick enough to agree that humans would not have invented love all by themselves, so why are you so set against the possibility of other human thought patterns and emotions reflecting your creator’s nature?

What!!! God taught us how to love??? Pure religiosity from an agnostic.

dhw: You have said evolution is over and he does not need to intervene. Why would he watch if he was not interested in what is happening? And if he is interested in what is happening, why do you find it impossible to believe that he might have created life because he wanted to watch something interesting?

Pure humanizing God again. God does not need interesting or entertaining events.>

DAVID: You lack an ability to properly think about God. Adler, a philosopher of religion, used our evolution as a proof of God. Any followers of Adler or similar theists would laugh at your approach.
And:
DAVID: Proof of God is an issue here in an agnostic website.

dhw: Of course it is. And so is the possible nature, purpose and method of a possible God, as illustrated by evolution, which is our subject here. You defend your illogical theistic theory against my logical (you agree) theistic alternatives on the grounds that you know how to think about God and I don’t. If he exists, only God knows how to think about God, so please don’t be so presumptuous and stick to the arguments.

Again you have artfully distorted my agreement that your logical theistic alternatives are logical. What I said was they are logical only in the sense a highly humanized form of God. Your version of God. As for theistic thinking at least I have been taught by a philosopher of religion. Who taught you?