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

by David Turell , Monday, May 15, 2023, 16:43 (556 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID:I stand by my statement above. You totally miss the nuance of it due to your innate biases.

dhw: What nuance? What bias? According to you, your God was “first cause”. He was not confronted by an existing choice of methods. He designed his method! And someone who designs a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method can only be a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer. Please stop blaming me for your criticism of your God.

Still stuck in your biases. God achieved brilliant designs using a cumbersome method He developed. BUT the cumbersome interpretation is my human interpretation. God may not have viewed it that way as He chose to do it. He did not choose direct creation generally but did do it in the Cambrian and othee isolated examples.

dhw: […] all three of my theories present a God with a “basic direction” which explains the history of life’s vast variety, as we know it: 1) He experiments in order to create a being with thought patterns and emotions like his own (plus food); 2) he experiments, learning, coming up with and enjoying new ideas as he goes along; 3) he gives his invention free rein (autonomy) in order to enjoy all the wonders it creates, although he can intervene if he feels like it. You may disapprove of such basic directions – although you are certain that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations – but please stop pretending that these basic directions are not basic directions.

DAVID: Once again we are exposed to a directionless God of your imagination.

dhw: I have just listed his basic directions.

How is there direction if He relies on experimentation which can cause direction change. Coming uo with new ideas means direction change. And allowing autonomous events in creation can easily mean direction change. 'Directionless' fits.

DAVID: Using comparisons of how each of us views God's thoughts and emotions does not smooth over the difference of my God who is powerful, purposeful, direct in creating exactly what He wants. Stick with your wimp if you wish.

dhw: My versions of a possible God are that he is all-powerful and purposeful, and he creates what he wants. Your God only wants to design us and our food, and therefore he designs 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with that he wants to design, and you call this direct. You regard his method as messy, cumbersome and inefficient, which apparently means it is brilliant. You turn language and logic on their head.

As above, a human interpretation is necessarily not God's. He used His evolutionary system to create our brain. Brilliant design, isn't it?

DAVID: I don't have your problem of requiring exactitudes. Life doesn't really offer them at the theological level of thought. If it makes sense to God, as you note, it is OK with me to accept God's illogical method of evolution.

dhw: I don’t require “exactitudes”, but at any level of thought, I do require arguments that make sense. I do not note that your arguments make sense to God: I note that YOU think they make sense ONLY to God, which is a confession that they make no sense to you.

Your lack of understanding is amazing: anything God does is OK with me. Once again you demand I read God's mind! How? The God you imagine is a mishmash of weakness.