Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 30, 2020, 19:02 (12 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: No dodging. I have no idea why God chose to evolve us. There is no way to know.

dhw: That is not the problem, which you continue to dodge... I have offered several perfectly logical explanations for God’s choice of evolution as a means of producing ALL species, but you refuse to consider them.

dhw: How about considering the possibility that your God did not WANT control, and that he deliberately created a system that would malfunction? Do you really imagine him wanting to specially design millions of organisms that would live for ever and ever and would reproduce more organisms that would live for ever and ever? Endings and new beginnings seem to me to be part of the essence of life – and if life was designed by God as an ever changing spectacle, then of course the system would have to cause endings as well as beginnings.

Once again you are imagining a God with a human personality which I do not accept. My God knows exactly what He wants and does it.

dhw: And once more: if your God is not in control of one aspect of evolution – either through weakness or through deliberate choice - why should he not also lack control over other aspects? (I prefer deliberate choice, as I am less convinced than you, in your latest U-turn, that your God makes mistakes.)[/i]

Answered below:


DAVID: […] My perfect God cannot design a perfect error-less biochemical living system running at high speed. I have always accepted that. All you want to do is attack poor God as therefore less than adequate. We're back to theodicy as a complaint.

dhw: You have completely ignored my proposal above, repeated your own theory, and interpreted my attack on your theory as an attack on your God. It is your theory that offers us a God who is less than adequate and who has built a system which cannot avoid errors. The theory I have presented offers a God who is in total control and knows just what he is doing. Please read it and tell us what you object to.

DAVID: My point is there is no God who can create a perfect living biochemical high-speed system. The molecules will occasionally make mistakes. From my training in biochemistry I can state that as a fact. We can make a perfect auto, but after time wear and tear will result in needed repairs. A biological system will have early mistakes and also later wear and tear. You don't have to accept the God that creates a biochemical living system with mistakes. I do. Theodicy is your problem.

dhw: Once again, you have completely ignored my proposal. Assuming God exists, of course I accept that he created a system with “mistakes”. You don’t need to be trained in biochemistry to know that your body is full of bits and pieces that go wrong! Theodicy is your problem, not mine. So instead of tying yourself in knots trying to excuse your perfect God for creating an imperfect system (that is your “theodicy”), why not consider the possibility that he deliberately created a system that would go wrong? My proposal above offers you a solution to theodicy (as it can be extended to cover the whole of life), but you can’t be bothered even to consider it.

No, I don't accept your God with His human personality. The many safeguards in the biochemistry of life means He tried to stop as many errors as could be stopped. The errors were not planned on his part.


Under “garbage systems”:

DAVID: dhw would prefer it if God arranged a biological system that had no garbage. Can't be done, based on our studies of life's processes. We are still at theodicy, the assumption that God does not keep everything perfect and He should when He creates.

dhw: If you would only read my posts, you wouldn’t make such silly assumptions. I have offered you an explanation for all the “imperfections”, and my theory of evolution (theistic version: God designed the autonomous mechanism for design, i.e. cellular intelligence) implies the exact opposite of him “keeping everything perfect”. But you object to all my alternative, logical theistic explanations of life’s history (including those that make sapiens a prime purpose) on the grounds that they “humanize” your God, even though you say he probably has thought patterns similar to ours. My proposal also explains the system of garbage removal, in which cell communities – just like ant communities – organize themselves to deal with whatever problems arise from their activities.

Same list of complaints. As for thoughts, our logic and God's logic are the same, nothing more. we cannot know His underlying reasons for his actions. And of course you've plugged in the fantastic cell committees that have brilliant mental abilities, not from God. But when I make this complaint you add God might have done it and given them brilliance.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum