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:

> > dhw: The same reasoning applies to all the human thought patterns and emotions that both you and I incorporate into our theories. So please stop using “humanization” as a reason for rejecting logical alternatives to your own illogical and fixed belief that your God designed countless life forms [b]which had no connection with humans[/b] as “[b]preparation[/b]” for humans and “[b]part of the goal of evolving humans[/b]”.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Your humanizing God thoughts: 1) free-for-all to enjoy; 2) let cells do their own designing, which means loss of purpose control; 3) having to experiment, which means doesn't know what He is doing or how to do it. I am not arguing about 'thought patterns' but God's attitudes and attributes you present as if God is human as he creates. [/i](Numerals inserted by dhw for brevity’s sake)
> > 
> > dhw: 1)	You have said you are sure that your God enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. What’s wrong with such “human” attributes?
> > 2)	How can it mean loss of purpose if his purpose, for instance, is to create things which he enjoys creating and which he will find interesting to watch? Which is more interesting: a story/game of which you know in advance every detail including the outcome, or a story/game which constantly surprises you?
> > 3)	Why such a negative view of experimentation? As you yourself point out under “biggest bacterium”, trying new approaches is a possibility, and I see no reason to assume that your God would not enjoy the challenge of creating something new, and learning as he goes along. How insufferably boring it would be to know everything in advance! But perhaps you should remind us of your own “humanized” reasons for your God’s decision to create humans, plus all the different forms of life and food unconnected with humans.
> 
> Our endless debate is strictly about who God is, based on what He has done. Each of us has entirely  different versions, whose attributes are obvious. I won't needlessly repeat them. We will never agree. So perhaps this aspect of our discussions should end as having no fruitful decisions apparent.
> > 
> > dhw: [i]You keep agreeing that Adler does NOT cover your theory, so why do you keep bringing him into the discussion of your theory? [/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]My theory directly concerns the production of humans, my point and Adler's point. You obviously haven't understood anything about Adler.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: You have told us repeatedly that Adler uses humans as evidence for the existence of God. He does not deal with your theory that your God individually designed every life form, natural wonder etc. as preparation for humans and part of the goal of evolving humans, although most of them had no connection with humans. [b]And you admit that you can’t find any explanation for such a theory, [/b]but you go on pretending that it makes sense. Nothing to do with Adler.
> 
> The bold is your usual distortion. Both  Adler and  I view God as creating the evolution of all forms of life, finally ending with humans purposely. If you don't believe me, read Adler.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Same lame objection. I accept God's works without questioning. We are the endpoint of Darwin's tree sketch. An Oak tree from roots to acorns is totally connected! You make no sense.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw Evolution is not an oak tree! If the tree is indeed your God’s work, you totally fail to grasp the fact that it has not just produced one fruit but countless different fruits, and the majority of these have no connection with the only fruit you think your God wanted to design (plus those that would feed your “acorn”).
> 
> I'm using your hero Darwin's sketch! All of evolution is a giant bush with connecting branches continuing to branch until endpoints are reached. We are one endpoint, fed by the others as well as some on twigs of our branch.