Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, January 04, 2024, 09:12 (322 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Allegorical meaning must be used in discussions of God. Ask any true theologian.

dhw: I don’t know what qualifications one needs in order to be a “true” theologian, but it makes no difference. YOU mean the same as I do, and so YOU believe he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations - no further definition necessary. And this offers us a perfectly credible purpose for creating the history of life as we know it. Thank you.

DAVID: I have read theological theory and teachings in how to think about God. But we do understand each other.

Congratulations on your wide reading. That does not alter the fact that you and I use the words “enjoy” and “interested” with the same meaning, and since you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, you have no grounds for dismissing the theory that his purpose might be to enjoy creating things he will be interested in.

DAVID: Your fallacy again. God does not create to find interests. That is humanizing Him. God does not need interests!

I don’t regard your God as “needy”. Your whole theory of evolution is based on him wanting to create humans. Why is it godlike to want to create something, but enjoying creating something interesting is only for humans, even though you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations? Yet another example of your self-contradiction.

DAVID: Logic: God creates reality.

dhw: Agreed (if he exists).

DAVID: God evolved us over time as His choice of creation.

dhw: By “evolved” you mean specially designed. What do you mean by “choice of creation”? Are you telling us that the 99.9 irrelevant species which he designed were NOT his “choice of creation”?

DAVID: Everything in the history of evolution is God's creation.

And you have no idea why he would have specially created 99.9 species out of 100 that had nothing to do with the purpose you impose on him.

DAVID: 99.9% loss is simply a mathematical analysis of His process. It gave us the surviving 0.1% of everything living on Earth.

dhw: According to you, 99.9% is the number of species he designed which had no relevance to his one and only goal,. The 99.9%, according to you, gave us nothing. Only the 0.1% gave us the survivors currently living on Earth. Stop dodging!

dhw: Only the 0.1% led to current life forms.

DAVID: We agree.

dhw: So why have you contradicted yourself by telling us the 99.9% gave us the surviving 0.1%?

DAVID: The 99.9% of evolution produced the 0.1% extant.

You have just agreed that only 0.1% led to current forms, and now you say 99.9% produced current forms. They didn’t. Only 0.1% produced current forms. Please stop contradicting yourself.

DAVID: There is no evidence cell committees can do more than tiny adaptations.

dhw: There is no evidence that some unknown, eternal, sourceless mind preprogrammed or dabbled every species, innovation, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder in the whole of life’s history. That is why we can only theorise.

DAVID: A difference. You theorize, I believe.

dhw: You theorize and believe your theory and close your mind to its illogicality and to any other theory. That is the difference.

DAVID: Note Godel tells us God must be considered as perfect in every aspect.

Is Godel a pseudonym for God? Note: Dawkins tells us God is a delusion. Is that supposed to convince you? NOBODY knows whether God exists, and if he does, NOBODY knows his nature.