Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 01, 2020, 18:28 (38 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 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: So does mine. Why do you regard a “perfect” God, who deliberately designs the imperfect system we know, as being more “human” and less purposeful than a “perfect” God who is unable to design a system without imperfections?

You refuse to accept the point that a high-speed living biological system cannot be perfect. Are you campaigning for a 'perfect' God that can create it? Your definition of a perfect God doesn't exist.


dhw: ...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.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: Authoritatively stated, and pretty degrading to your perfect God, who simply did his best to make up for the imperfect and uncontrollable system he created.

Not degrading except as in your eyes. The self-correcting and safeguard systems in living organisms shows God knew it wouldn't work perfectly. I've produced a multitude of articles about safeguards showing required design, stating the safeguards must have been present when the advanced state appeared. Remember?


dhw: 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.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: Of course we can’t know his reasons, but how do you know his logic is the same as ours if you can’t understand why he did what he did?

I've explained what I think His reasoning is about complexification, as a prime example of how I attempt to understand why and what He has done. It implies His logical thought, similar to ours.


DAVID: 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.

dhw: Why “not from God”? I am an agnostic, and right from the start I have argued that the source of cellular intelligence may be your God! And I have continually asked you why you think your God is incapable of endowing cells with the intelligence to do their own designing (see Shapiro and Talbott)? Of course he could have done it – but you have fixed ideas about what he did and why he did it.

Referring to Talbott, you gotten rid of chance, a major advance in our discussions. I'll stick with God giving cells intelligent instructions, the ID approach.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum