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:

> > [b]PART TWO[/b]
> 
> > DAVID: [i]Only one evolution occurred. Whether neat or messy, we are here. That is/was God's obvious prime purpose. [/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Why “prime” purpose? I’ve challenged you to tell us what other purposes you might “suppose”, and you say there are none. The fact that we are here is not obviously his one and only purpose, because it doesn’t explain why he designed 99% of life forms that had no connection with us and our food.
> 
> If you believe God chose to evolve us, it makes perfect sense. God may have other ancillary goals. I've never said 'none'.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Our individual views of God are light-years apart. But as we each stick to our views their will be little agreement.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: So we analyse our views to see how convincing they are. Yours is that your God’s use of evolution is inefficient, cumbersome and messy, whereas mine all have him doing precisely what he wanted, without any of these derogatory characteristics.
> 
> Thank you for defending MY God.
> > 
> > [b]Common descent[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID: […] [i]An all-knowing God does not need experimentation. More evidence you don't know how to think about God[/i].
> > 
> > dhw: […] [b][i]You yourself actually called the 99% “failed experiments” when you were promoting the theory that your marvellous designer blundered from one mistake to another with his faulty designs.[/i][/b]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]The bold shows you love to dredge up past comments, no longer applicable in this present debate.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]Contrast this with your statement “my general views never change”. I am of course delighted that you finally abandoned your derogatory theory about your God’s blunders, but why should I accept a word you say now if in a few weeks’ time you are going to tell me to ignore them. This is exactly what you have done with your statements about God having thought patterns and emotions like ours, and what you are trying to do with your nonsense about “allegorical” enjoyment and interest. [/i]
> 
> I will stick to what Adler taught me. Any description of God must be allegorical.
> > 
> > dhw: [i][b]Why are you so dead set against the idea that, instead of your God being forced by his own invented system to design 99% of species that were irrelevant to what he wanted to design,[/b]  [color=#f00]he deliberately and successfully experimented with different life forms, either in order to find the best formula for a being spiritually in his own image, or to find out the full potential of his invention (life)[/color][/i]?
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]The bold is one of the obvious distortions you constantly create. None of the 99% were irrelevant to God's purpose. Since God produced them, they were required in God's eyes. [/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Required for what??? How can extinct species which were dead ends that did not lead either to us or our food have been required for the design of us and our food? Please explain why your God could not have designed us and our food if he hadn’t first designed the brontosaurus (which did NOT belong to the species which evolved into birds).
> 
> All part of a required screening pattern as evolution requires.
> >  
> > DAVID: [i]The red comment is the usual totally humanized God theory.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Your usual silly objection to your God having thought patterns and emotions like ours, although you believe he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours.
> 
> It is more of your humanizing God beyond belief.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Thank you for defending God. God's handling of evolution was magniicent. He produced our brain!![/i]
> > 
> > dhw: More language games: a system which you describe as an inefficient and cumbersome mess is magnificent. The three alternatives I have offered you also resulted in the human brain, but two of them were efficient experiments that produced no mess at all.
> 
> A real 'theistic' God does not need experimentation. He knows what He wants to produce and produces it directly.