David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, January 19, 2020, 11:24 (1553 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You made the remarks, so why don’t you review them in context and tell us what else they can possibly mean?

DAVID: i can't hunt for context as you have the abilities given by Neil and I don't.

I noted down the quotes, but we’d have to go through all your past posts to find the originals. (You have the same access to these as I do.) Since clearly neither of us has the time to do this, I suggest you tell us what context would change the meaning of the following:
“Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.”
“You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn’t work.”
“Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time?”
“He [God] very well could think like us.”
All the life forms etc. were “interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.”

DAVID: I do not try to analyze His reasons for His purposes, as sheer guesses. All we know is what He did.
Dhw: Yes, all we know is what he did (if he exists), and all theories as to why he did it (i.e. his purpose or reason) are “sheer guesses”. The distinction between purpose and reason is silly. Purpose is the reason for doing something.

DAVID: That is a weird interpretation of reason and purpose. One arrives at purposes by using reason. Example: My horse needs a shelter from the storm. Do I put him under a tree or build him a shed? There are obviously two parts to the mental process.

Please stop playing language games. “I do not try to analyze his reasons” is the countable form of “reason”, i.e. the purpose behind an action. So you claim that you do not try to analyze the purpose of the purpose. “One arrives…by using reason” is the uncountable form, meaning the power to think. Yes of course one’s purposes depend on the ability to think. In your example, the purpose is shelter. What follows is a discussion of the method by which to achieve the purpose – not the purpose of the purpose!

dhw: Do I really have to repeat your version of purpose and reason? Here goes, then: sole purpose, to design H. sapiens (you refuse to discuss any purpose or reason for this). Ability: to do it any way he wants. Method: to design 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms, econiches, natural wonders, strategies etc. before starting to design umpteen different forms of pre-human and human. The REASON or PURPOSE for this: to fill in the time which inexplicably he decided to take before fulfilling his only purpose (H. sapiens).

DAVID: Again your weird approach. Proper thinking is as follows: for some unknown reasons (which can only be guessed at) God wants to produce humans. Again (for some unknown reasons) He chooses to evolve them over time.

Please don’t forget that according to you, he has the ability to fulfil his purpose any way he chooses. It is therefore illogical that he should have one purpose only, have the ability to fulfil that purpose, but chooses not to do so and therefore “has to” design the rest (“has to” was another quote, but I didn’t keep it).

DAVID: Since all evolving organisms must have energy to survive, He creates a huge group of econiches to solve the feeding problem over the time involved, obviously not the stupid idea 'TO FILL TIME'. (dhw: Maybe it was just “cover”, as above). He clearly recognized the problems evolution presents and sets about to solve them as He goes forward.

Oh, so he has to solve problems as he goes forward. And there was me thinking you had him preprogramming everything right from the start. Except for the dabbles, and if the dabbles were in order to solve problems as he goes forward, does that not suggest to you that he didn’t know right from the start how to achieve his purpose? Could it be that some of what he did was part of a learning process, which required experimentation? Solving problems as he goes forward sounds wonderfully human, doesn’t it?

DAVID: Since He is in charge, this description of His activities is obviously quite logical. Your humanizing approach describes Him as unreasonably doddering around.

On the contrary, I offer two hypotheses allowing for your single goal: either he had to experiment, (or as you put it so neatly, solve problems as he went forward), or humans were a late entry into his thoughts. Why do you consider either of these to be “doddering”?

DAVID: It is your humanized ideas about God that creates your problem, which you then try unreasonably to place on me, as you have no reasonable idea as to how to think about God without falling into traps. Adler is quite clear.

Well, good for Adler because your theory brings together three factors which are anything but clear since you can’t explain why, if his sole purpose was humans, he chose not to fulfil his sole purpose for 3.X billion years even though he had the ability to do so. But although that is the subject under discussion, you keep telling us Adler doesn't deal with it, so let's leave Adler out of it, shall we?