Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, April 12, 2023, 11:09 (589 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: There are many opinions of God's personality, no better than the one I developed for myself with help from Adler, as important any 'experts' you presented.

dhw: The one you have developed is that of a God whose sole purpose is to design us and our food, and whose method of achieving his purpose is inefficient, cumbersome and messy. You reject my proposals on the grounds that most religions would reject them, and then proudly inform us: “The Bible, Adam and Eve are not part of my theology, nor Does Whitehead impress me. I follow the Catholic philosopher Ed Feser for some of his thinking. But I have my own brand of theism I follow.” So your views of God do not conform to “most religions”, but that’s fine. It’s only if my proposals don’t conform to most religions that it’s not fine.

DAVID: Your form creates a God who is very humanlike in His methods and desires for Himself. God is selfless

You tried to dismiss my alternatives on the grounds that most religions would reject them, and then you proudly informed us that you reject the basis of most religions and have your own brand of theism! You call your God’s methods inefficient, cumbersome and messy, and apparently this makes him less humanlike and more godlike than a God who in my three alternatives does precisely what he wants to do. I have no idea why your certainty that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations is more “selfless” than my alternatives, which have him enjoying creating and being interested in his creations.

DAVID: I accept what God did as His valid choice of method, for His own reasons. It worked, we are here.

dhw: You accept your THEORY about what God did for unknown reasons, and it makes no sense to you. All my alternatives end up with us being here, and they all “worked”, according to whatever purpose we assign to him.

DAVID: Like most believers I accept what God does without question.

I had no idea that most believers believe that God deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose, and his method of design was inefficient, cumbersome and messy. I expect most believers would be quite surprised that this is what they are supposed to believe.

DAVID: I'll stick with God chose His method of creation for His own, unknown to us, reasons. As for His thought patterns and emotions we have discussed they are allegorical. He may think as we do but His results might surprise us.

I have no doubt that if God exists, he had his own purpose and method for creation. That does not mean his purpose and method were the ones which you have chosen for him, and which show him to be an inefficient, cumbersome and messy designer. As for thought patterns and emotions, YOU know what you mean when you say he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations; these words are not “allegories”, and if he may think as we do, then it may be that one or other of my logical alternative explanations of evolution’s history is correct. You certainly can’t dismiss them on the grounds that although he may think as we do, he doesn’t think as we do.