Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, July 22, 2020, 09:58 (18 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: He invented living organisms, but cannot stop molecular mistakes. Accept it.

dhw: As usual, I will put on my theist hat for the sake of this discussion. Why should I accept your theory that your at times all-powerful, all-knowing, always-in-control God is so incompetent that he invents a system which includes mistakes he can’t control, whereas we humans are smart enough to correct some of them! And why should I accept that millions of mistaken deaths are a sign of good planning? (NB This is not a criticism of God, but of your interpretation of God’s powers and wishes.)

DAVID: Off the point of my explanation as usual. We do not know of any other system He could invent. We know it must be carbon based, and the reactions occur at very high split-second speed. It relies on proteins which must fold precisely to produce their functionality. This allows for the definite probability of molecular error, and we see the backup systems builtin for corrections. They tell us God foresaw the problems. As for correction of biological errors, God gave us the complexity of brain to solve what we can solve. Your problem not mine. Your theistic hat is wildly askew as usual. I wish I could clarify your knowledge of biochemistry, as you obviously don't comprehend my point of view.

I’m sorry, but all you are doing is explaining why things go wrong. I am not disputing the biochemistry but your interpretation of your God’s powers and intentions. Of course we don’t know of any other system, and of course the system we know is full of errors, and of course the errors can sometimes be corrected and sometimes can’t be corrected. But I suggest that if your God is all-powerful, he will do what he wants to do. You say he deliberately created the errors that lead to old people dying, but the errors that kill young people are not his fault (i.e. he didn’t want them). With my theist's hat on, I suggest that maybe he deliberately created all the errors, i.e. he wanted them (since death was essential to whatever might have been his purpose). The biochemistry is the same for each theory. And I find it absurd to argue that your all-powerful God could not correct some errors, but gave us the intelligence to do what he couldn’t do.

DAVID: That still doesn't tell us His reasoning behind His purposes.

dhw: Your God’s purpose was to design H. sapiens (God hasn’t told us the reason why), and his purpose for designing all the extinct non-human life forms, econiches etc. was to feed H. sapiens, who had not yet arrived (God hasn’t told us the reason and you have no idea why he thought he needed to feed all the extinct non-human forms before he directly designed H. sapiens).

DAVID: Ridiculous comment. Feeding everyone during evolution is an obvious necessity.

Designing and feeding millions of now extinct non-human life forms is not an obvious necessity if his only intention was to design and feed humans! Stop dodging!

dhw: You dismiss other theories... because they humanize your God, although you agree that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours but apparently this is a distortion of your statement that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: There can be only one definite theory only about God's thoughts: He uses logic as we do. The rest is guesswork.

What is a “definite” theory? If he uses logic as we do, we should be able to understand it. Not even you can understand the logic of the bold above, whereas you do recognize the logic of my alternatives.

dhw: However, if your God had other goals or secondary purposes, we might be able to find a more logical explanation of evolution, so please tell us what you think the other or secondary purposes might have been.

DAVID: All I can do is look at history and the extraordinary result of conscious humans. I'll ask you, are there other purposes? I don't know of any serious ones.

dhw: If you can’t think of any other purposes, then please stop pretending that I distort your opinions, and please stop substituting “a” purpose or a “prime purpose” or “endpoint” for THE purpose. How do you define “serious” ones? I have offered you several logical explanations of the history: experimenting, getting new ideas as history progresses, designing for his own enjoyment, designing to relieve the boredom of eternal isolation – all of these in keeping with your own extremely serious observation that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: The usual humanized version of how God thinks and develops purpose.

Fits in perfectly with your contention that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, “beyond just simple logical thought”.

DAVID: And it ends with the usual distortion of my view of God's thoughts.

Not a distortion but a direct quote, and a perfectly reasonable theory. When pressed for a possible explanation of your God’s purpose for creating H. sapiens, you even acknowledge that your God might want a relationship with us, might want us to admire his works, and might enjoy his own works as a painter enjoys his paintings.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum