Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 02, 2020, 18:50 (37 days ago) @ dhw

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?

DAVID: 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: I have proposed that if he exists, your God deliberately designed a system with errors, because endings are as integral to life as beginnings. Can you imagine a planet full of organisms that never die but go on producing more and more and more….? The idea is absurd. Now please answer my bolded question.

I've told you, it doesn't bother me that no God can make a perfect biological living system. The 'errors' are accidents not planned. But we both know death is built into life. Death has nothing to do with this argument. Death is planned, not an accident, and you understand that I would think. Why did you drag it in?

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.

DAVID: 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: And I remember proposing that the “safeguards” could just as well be the responses of autonomous organisms finding their own ways of solving the problems you believe God set them, whether deliberately or otherwise. I’m surprised you don’t regard God “trying to stop errors” as degradingly humanizing him. At least in my alternative proposal he does exactly what he wants to do.

That is your view of your humanized God, not mine.


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?

DAVID: 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.

dhw: The context is your theory of evolution, which is that your all-powerful God (except when he’s not all-powerful) had only one purpose – to design H. sapiens – but chose to design millions of now extinct non-human life forms before designing our ancestors before designing us, and you don’t know why. Once again, please stop dodging.

I don't dodge while you complain about a God you do not fully understand in the way I do. I'll still follow Adler's logic as you follow Talbott.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum