David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, October 19, 2019, 10:28 (1645 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I admire the breadth of your research, but how can you claim that this provides you with “good valid logical reasons” for all the positions that disturb me, when you explicitly acknowledge that : “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history” and “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn’t work.” And “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time?”

DAVID: We cannot know how God thinks. I'll stick to the point that His personality is like no other person we know. It is all guesswork from studying His works. Of course I can agree with you that your suggestions are logical at a human level. I'm human also, but that dos not mean you are correct in any sense. You guess, but can't believe your conclusions since they are simply suppositions.

Yes, they are alternative theistic explanations of the course and purpose of evolution, and you agree that they are logical. When I challenge your own guess, you acknowledge that in order to believe it, you must abandon human reasoning when you apply it to the history. I don’t know how you can stick to your one fixed belief when as far as you, a human being, are concerned it is illogical.

dhw: […] do please tell us the “good valid logical reasons” for the incongruities which demand the abandonment of human reasoning, and while you're at it, please explain why you dismiss my humanly logical alternatives as "humanizing" God, while you agree that he "very well could think like us".

DAVID: It is your illogicality not mine. I honestly do not see the incongruities you have invented in your mind.

So when you admit that your theory requires the abandonment of human reasoning, you regard my logical human reasoning as illogical! When you admit that your theory is illogical, and you cry out that you have no idea why your God chose to delay fulfilling his one and only purpose (“I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”) and therefore had to specially design all the non-human branches of the evolutionary bush, you still don’t see the incongruities of your theory!

DAVID: […] We can only guess at His reasoning with our human reasoning we can produce all sorts of theories, which at their base are on only human reasoning. That is why I tell you you are humanizing God. And that is why I look primarily at what science tells us and don't make the guesses you make. I don't extrapolate from the history. The history provides the only real facts we have.

But you do extrapolate from the history, because you tell us that your God’s sole purpose was to create H. sapiens, but first he specially designed every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take” [i.e. before embarking on the fulfilment of his one and only purpose]. And you tell us that you look primarily at what science tells us and you don’t make guesses!

DAVID: ( under “balance of nature”): another example of the importance of ecosystems and how tightly controlled they are and must not be disturbed by humans. But we humans are put in charge and must be careful in how we manage these systems.

I don’t know about “put in charge”, but we certainly have the power to destroy the balance.

DAVID: These had to be set up before H. sapiens arrived with the ability to learn to handle them. Yet dhw wants God to rush to create humans.

I do not question the importance of the balance of nature for the survival of any species, including humans. I question your theory that for 3.X billion years your God had to design loads and loads of different ecosystems, the vast majority of which are extinct and had nothing whatever to do with humans, because although humans were his only purpose, for reasons you cannot even begin to fathom he had decided not to design them for 3.X billion years.