Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Wednesday, January 17, 2024, 19:22 (101 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The only way I can know God is studying His works. We are the unexpected result of natural evolution. Therefore, we must have been designed by God, as the only plausible explanation. Pure Adlerism. Life is a miracle and humans even more miraculous. Living in a miracle softens the surprise. Your reaction is extremely soft.

dhw: Your evasions are becoming painful. The miracle of life and of humans is your evidence for design and the existence of God. That is not the subject of our discussion, which is your theistic theories of evolution bolded above which, when combined, make no sense even to you .

Your objections are false and painful to constantly have to rebut. God's method of creation was to evolve us as the primary end point. There is no point to constantly complain His method resulted in that 99.9% of all species ancestors are extinct. That is a fact of evolution's results.

99.9& versus 0.1%

DAVID: Our direct human line had a loss of ancestors at the 99.9% level, as per Raup.

dhw: No problem. But now back you go to the absurd statement that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all the organisms that have ever lived. You have even suggested that maybe 100% of dinosaurs had no connection with us or our food, i.e. there is not even a 0.1% connection! Please stop prolonging the agony with all these self-contradictions!

Everything living is the result of 99.9% loss of ancestors.

dhw: I asked you what might be your purposeful God’s purpose for giving humans control of the Earth. Your answer: God gave humans the brains to run the show. Does that tell us his purpose?

Yes, God wanted us in charge, as we are.

Theodicy (now "prejudice")

dhw: Prejudice always has a root in the past. You form an opinion, and from then on you stick to it even if it doesn’t make sense. […] I can’t decide whether God exists or not. If he does, I consider different hypotheses about his possible purposes, nature and methods. I find some more convincing than others (and try to explain why), but none are convincing enough for me to form a firm belief. Somewhere along the line, I am wrong, but I do not see my personal indecisiveness as prejudice.

DAVID: Indecisiveness is a state of mind with a cause in your background. You told us you found the God of the OT frightening, or roughly implied that. Did that childhood impression reman as a strong influence?

dhw: I can assure you that my indecisiveness (which is virtually the opposite of prejudice) has arisen not from my dislike of the nasty God of the OT, but from the fact that the more I think about the whole subject, the more I become aware of the pros and cons, of my own ignorance as well as that of others, and the to me obvious fact that unless there is an afterlife in which the truth is revealed, I shall never be in a position to know the truth. And I don’t even know if there is an afterlife. Unlike you, I have no fixed beliefs to which I cling, no matter how illogical they may be. Do you regard this as prejudice?

No, you have a reasonable position, since you require proof. But why criticize beliefs based on faith?