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

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 25, 2023, 16:12 (7 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You are still struggling to show your imagined God is very human like us. And you have proposed God is not all-knowing like us humans. Your weak form of God is well-described. You don't need to convince us further.

dhw: No struggle, no weakness, and the God I am imagining is not “very human” like us, but we have been given some of his thought patterns and emotions – as you have agreed is perfectly possible. Your objections do not answer my own objections to the sheer illogicality of your theory, which even labels your God’s method as inefficient, and they do not detract from the fact that even you accept that all my alternatives provide logical theistic explanations for the history of evolution.

Stop distorting!! What I agreed to in the past is if your alternative God is accepted as highly humanized, what He does is logical. Not real support foe Him.

DAVID: My all-powerful, all-knowing God is nothing like yours, as the debate shows. My God used a slow, cumbersome system to perfection. Look at the wondrous bush of life in all its diversity. If it all worked out so perfectly, why should you complain?

dhw: In none of my alternatives do I complain! I am the one who praises the wonderful diversity of life and who suggests that this is what your God (if he exists) wanted and achieved. You are the one who proposes that your God devised a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method to achieve what he wanted, which according to you was nothing but us humans and our food. You are totally at a loss to explain why, being all-powerful and all-knowing, he didn’t design us and our food directly, but you refuse to consider any theory that differs from your own.

What I can't accept is a highly humanized God who is not all-knowing.

DAVID: The goal or end point of evolution produces naturally 99% non-survival. Since God chose that method, the results didn't disturb Him, as it does you.

dhw: What do you mean by “naturally”. If your God designed every species, where does Nature come into it? And how do you know your guy chose such an inefficient method and wasn’t disturbed by it, though it is perfectly possible – as I have shown – that he had a different purpose, chose a different method to achieve that purpose, and happily continued to do exactly what he wanted to do?

DAVID: I used 'naturally' as 'expected' as shown by Raup. Repeating how wonderful your human God is will not convince anyone who believes.

dhw: As “expected” by whom? Who laid down the law that says: "If thou wishest to create one species plus its food, thou must design and then get rid of 99 species out of 100 that have nothing to do with the one species plus its food”? Why do you think my wonderfully efficient designer would be less convincing than your messy, cumbersome, inefficient version?

Anyone who know Raup's work would understand. As for which God to pick, the same wonderful diversity of life came from the evolutionary system they each used. Your guy bumbled and stumbled into humans, while my guy planned for them.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum