Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, March 16, 2023, 11:58 (616 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The free-for-all theory: He doesn’t rely on them [cells] 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,

DAVID: 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.

I’ll take your word on the 99% as I haven’t recorded a quote on the figure. Your response is even more humiliating: our failure rate is now much lower than his! What a triumph for your all-powerful, all-knowing God!

dhw: […] 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?

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

I didn’t record this quote either, but it stuck in my mind: you were happy with the idea that your God knew what love was, but you don’t like the idea that he might have created life because he enjoys creating and having interesting things to watch, even though you are sure he enjoys creating and watches with interest.

dhw: What do you think he is doing now?

DAVID: Watching.

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?

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

You believe he is watching. Why would he watch if he is not interested in what he is watching?

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.

DAVID: 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.

There is no reason at all to assume that the supposed creator of all things has not endowed his creations with some of his own “thought patterns and emotions” – as you agreed long ago. I don’t know why you think a God who enjoys creating is “highly humanized”, whereas a God who blunders into making 99% of mistakes in his designs, and relies on luck to provide the conditions necessary for his one and only purpose, counts as more godlike than one who only creates what he wants to create.

DAVID: Your version of God. As for theistic thinking at least I have been taught by a philosopher of religion. Who taught you?

I rejected what I was taught at synagogue and at school, and I wonder which philosopher of religion taught you that your all-powerful, all-knowing God was an inefficient designer who blundered into a 99% failure rate etc. as bolded above. And why do you believe such a theory when you can’t even understand it yourself?