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

by dhw, Thursday, May 11, 2023, 12:45 (560 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: As for my “highly humanized” form of God, you agree that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. Of course he’s not human, but that does not invalidate the theory that the creator might endow his creations with thought patterns and emotions like his own. Nor does it mean that your messy, cumbersome, inefficient God is less human and more godlike than one who does precisely what he wants to do. (NB Of course all these discussions presuppose the existence of God, which itself is a moot question!)

DAVID: Since the presence or not of God depends on who is pontificating, your questioning approach is certainly not mine. My conclusions are an amalgam of my ideas from researching many authorities. With freedom by not being bound by specific theistic thoughts or theories. Adler defines a very specific God entity. That has become my God. I have no idea what guides your prefrences.

You certainly do not question your approach or your conclusions, even though you can find no logical reasons why your God would choose a messy, cumbersome and inefficient way to achieve the purpose you impose on him, and you have admitted that Adler has nothing whatsoever to say about your theory. (“Adler gives me a specific description of who God is. How God operates is another different issue.”) My approach (I don’t know why you call them preferences) is to look for logical reasons why evolution took the course we agree it took: namely, producing a vast variety of life forms and ecosysytems, 99% of which have become extinct.

DAVID: As for your skewed view of God's evolution, we must accept that God chose a cumbersome prolonged process for His own reasons.

dhw: 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: Because the history is one of a cumbersome evolution.

dhw: The history of evolution is one of an ever changing variety of life forms. Why do you assume that your God did not want to create an ever changing variety of life forms?

DAVID: God created exactly what He wished created. What is your point exactly?

I’m surprised you haven’t cottoned on yet. My point is that even if we assume your God exists, there is no conceivable logic in your theory that at one and the same time he is all-powerful and all-knowing, his one and only purpose was to create sapiens plus food, and he did so by deliberately designing 99 out of 100 life forms which had no connection with his one and only purpose, and this messy, cumbersome, inefficient method shows him to be a brilliant designer! (“I have carefully explained God chose a messy system and makes it work beautifully.”) Conversely, the three alternative theories I offer all make perfect sense, but you reject them on the grounds that they entail human thought patterns and emotions, although you agree that your God may well have human thought patterns and emotions.

DAVID: It is your interpretation that God is an inefficient blunderer. God easily controls a messy evolutionary system.

You have explicitly stated: “we must accept that God chose a cumbersome prolonged process for his own reasons”, you describe his methods as messy and inefficient, and you "accept God warts and all.”

DAVID: This is logical: GOD CHOSE TO EVOLVE US FOR hIS OWN REASONS.

Yes, it is logical that if he exists HE CHOSE TO EVOLVE ALL LIFE FORMS EXTANT AND EXTINCT FOR HIS OWN REASONS, and you cannot find a single reason why he would have chosen to evolve all the life forms that had no connection with us and our food, but you insist that we were his one and only purpose and that despite being all-powerful and all-knowing, he is/was a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.