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

by dhw, Sunday, May 07, 2023, 11:50 (564 days ago) @ David Turell

I shall divide our exchange into each of its sections.

dhw: It is amazing to me that first you try to reject my alternatives because most religions would reject them, and in the same breath you tell us that you reject most religions and have your own brand of theism.

DAVID: I accept that the OT presents an accurate account of ancient Jewish history. Recent rabbis have softened God's image as portrayed. That is my starting point in my approach to God.

I have offered alternative explanations for your God’s use of evolution, and you say that most religions would reject them. You then tell us that you reject most religions and have your own brand of theism. Your response totally ignores your double standards.

dhw: As for Adler, you keep telling us that he does NOT cover your illogical theories, so please stop blaming him for all the messy bits and pieces that don’t make any sense to anyone (except, apparently, God).

DAVID: Then I use Adler, a very prominent philosopher of religion, to guide me as to "How To Think About God", his book. All the rest emanates from my own research and analysis. Therefore, Adler is a basis, so he would have no idea of what I present here, unless he were alive and following us. That applies to the rest of humanity, religious or not.

Since Adler does not support your theory that your God deliberately created 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his alleged single purpose of designing sapiens and our food, his book is irrelevant to your defence of a theory which is so irrational that you describe your God as a “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient” designer.

dhw: It is equally amazing to me that you call your God inefficient, cumbersome and messy, and regard this as being less human and more godlike than my alternatives, which show him doing precisely what he wants to do.

DAVID: As for your skewed view of God's evolution, we must accept that God chose a cumbersome prolonged process for His own reasons. You've told us direct creation is more sensible. God should have listened to you.

You have agreed that direct creation would be more sensible if God’s sole purpose was to design us plus food. Hence my alternative logical explanations. So why “must” we accept YOUR view of God as a cumbersome designer, when it is perfectly possible to find logical explanations for his design of ALL species?

DAVID: Based on Adler's instruction's, you have no concept of how to think about God.

You have agreed that Adler does not tell us to think of God as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

dhw: And it is amazing to me that while you are certain your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, this somehow makes him more “selfless” than my alternatives, which have him enjoying creating and being interested in his creations.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Exactly, God thinks in a similar fashion, but not precisely as we do.

dhw: Nobody knows how God thinks (if he exists). If you believe he thinks in a similar fashion to us, how does that support your theories, which make no sense even to you (you can't think of any reasons why he would act the way you make him act), and how does it invalidate my theories, which make perfect sense to both of us but to which you object on the grounds that they make him more human than the cumbersome, inefficient blunderer you envisage?

DAVID: I do not see God as an inefficient blunderer. That is your distortion of my presentation to try to explain why He used evolution.

You have just repeated: “we must accept that God chose a cumbersome prolonged process for his own reasons”, and you have repeatedly used the words “messy” and “inefficient”. Please stop contradicting yourself.

DAVID: That distortion includes the now red accusation above. I accept God's actions without question, while all you do is endless questioning, most of which have no answers but can be accepted on faith.

You accept your interpretation of God’s actions without question, and you can think of no possible reason why he should have acted that way if his sole purpose was the one you impose on him. I question your theory endlessly because you yourself find it incomprehensible. I offer various alternatives which you agree fit in with the history of life, but which you reject solely because you think your cumbersome designer is more godlike than a God who knows precisely what he is doing.