Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> > DAVID: […] [i]You are totally blind to how you use a humanized God to back your theories.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: You are totally blind to your own belief that your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours, and that we mimic him in many ways, and [b]you are totally blind to the obvious fact that he would hardly design something he knew nothing about, [/b]
> 
> Off the deep end! The bold says God does not see the future and know how to design it?
> 
> > dhw: and that it is not unreasonable to suppose that a creator would project part of himself into what he creates. Shared thought patterns do not, however, mean that a God who can create a universe and life must be human, which is the “distortion” and “overemphasis” that you imply in your efforts to undermine alternative theories which you regard as logical.
> 
> Distorting again. Putting Himself into this universe is logical. The way you describe how He decides to do what He does is based on giving him human thoughts on your part.
> >  
> > DAVID: [i][b]Adler specifically uses God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.[/b][/i]
> 
> > dhw: You keep agreeing that Adler does NOT cover your theory, so why do you keep bringing him into the discussion of your theory? Confusion, or a deliberate sidestep?
> 
> Please read the above again! My theory is not involved but Adler's philosophic point is quite clear. God produced humans
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]I...continue to view all of evolution as one whole giant process.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]You have rejected all four of my alternatives. I agree with you that evolution is one whole giant process in which vast numbers of life forms and their foods have come and gone, and we represent only one branch among countless other branches of life forms and their foods, the vast majority of which had no connection with us and our foods. It is therefore manifestly illogical to claim that all other life forms and foods were “preparation” for us, and were “part of the goal of evolving humans” and our foods.
> > [/i]
> > DAVID: [i]If evolution is a 'whole giant process' everything that happened can easily be viewed as God's purposes being fulfilled in a stepwise fashion through one process.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Of course it can. What is impossible to view is that he only had one purpose (humans plus food) and therefore individually designed countless numbers of life forms "[b]in preparation[/b]" for humans plus food, and as "[b]part of the goal of evolving humans[/b]" plus food although most of them had no connection with humans plus food.
> 
> What is the evolution of humans but exactly what you decry? Still slicing evolution into disconnected parts.