Back to David's theory of evolution: God's errors (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, July 29, 2020, 10:13 (1576 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] the molecules are programmed to have certain actions, but that programming is not an absolute control, and the molecules make mistakes in trying to follow it. Remember molecules must react with other molecules or properly fold to cause a reaction. they are not puppets!!!

dhw: A remarkable reversal of your usual claim that not only cells but also multicellular organisms ARE puppets. And now I have fight against your belief that he is a puppet master who can’t control his puppets.

DAVID: His instructions are the only controls control, which molecules may incorrectly follow.

And so he is a puppet master who can’t control his puppets.

DAVID: “A mutational error favored by natural selection or by God may have arranged for our human evolution.”

DAVID: Does'nt sound like me. I need the precise reference point to respond.

It was you. Why did you think it didn’t sound like you?

DAVID: Mutational errors may or may not be God, but it went forward with His permission.

So now you think he’s capable of preventing good mutational errors but is powerless to prevent bad ones.

DAVID: “God did not want errors. If the mutation resulted in our evolution God achieved His goal!”

dhw: Your first statement suggests that it would have been an error, not a deliberate creation. I’m sorry, but once you start positing contradictory theories, you are bound to get into more and more of a tangle trying to defend them.

DAVID: Reviewed. You still do not understand molecular errors. God may allow beneficial ones.

You still do not understand that a God who is capable of preventing beneficial errors but is incapable of preventing deleterious ones (a) has NOT deliberately created the beneficial ones, which makes nonsense of your argument that he is always in total control of evolution, and (b) is pathetically weak, especially in the light of the next comment, from your second post:
DAVID: Autoimmune diseases are mistakes of the genetic immune system. God has given us a brain that can solve many of the problems created.

He can’t solve some of the problems, but we can! Your God gets weaker every day.

dhw: […] you have now abandoned the concept of an all-powerful God always in control of everything, so why not at least remove the helpless tag and agree to the possibility that the free-running system he created may after all have been the system he wanted to create?

DAVID: Still confused. The molecules can make mistakes. God recognized this with backups present.

There is no confusion on my part! Your God designed the system and the mistakes show that he did not control the molecules – even with his backups. You have not answered my question. Why won’t you consider the possibility that he did not WANT to control the molecules, and that he WANTED to give them free rein to make both beneficial and deleterious changes to themselves?

dhw (re “humanizing” God): I have many times enumerated possible alternatives involving thought patterns, emotions, logic and attributes similar to ours, and you have dismissed them on the grounds that they involve thought patterns, emotions, logic or attributes similar to ours, although you have explicitly stated that he probably has thought patterns, emotions, logic and attributes similar to ours! Please stop contradicting yourself.

DAVID: No contradiction. How He applies His thoughts to purpose are only His. The similarity does not tell us His reasons for his actions.

Each of my alternatives offers reasons for his actions (if he exists). You dismiss them all because they “humanize” him, and yet you agree that he probably has human attributes!

DAVID: I find God as powerful as He can be. You are still to influenced by Biblical version of God.

dhw: You have no idea how powerful your God can be, and my alternatives have nothing to do with the biblical version. Please quote the biblical references to experimentation, late arrival of humans in his thinking, giving cells the intelligence to do their own designing, creating life as a spectacle for himself, relief from eternal boredom…

DAVID: Thank you for the description of your humanizing thoughts. Perfect human thoughts ascribed to God, and you can't see it.

This is getting sillier and sillier. You told me I was still too influenced by the Biblical version of God! I asked you to quote biblical references to any of my alternative explanations. Instead you tell me that my humanized versions are humanized, totally ignoring the point now bolded above: it is totally illogical for someone who agrees that his God probably has human attributes to dismiss a theory on the grounds that it endows his God with human attributes!