Back to theodicy and David's theories (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Thursday, February 04, 2021, 08:48 (561 days ago) @ David Turell

Protein folding creates life

David’s comment on the latest entry: Once again note high speed requirements, while the free floating molecules can make mistakes.

This has never been questioned. The problem of “mistakes” links up with all the other harmful products of your God’s creativity, encompassed by the general subject of “theodicy”.

Junk DNA:

DAVID: This system God designed for adaptation has both good and bad, as we interpret the results. Is God required to produce perfection?

Again, if God exists and designed a system that creates both good and bad, it is not a question of what is “required” of God, but of why he might have created good and bad. That is the subject of our discussion on theodicy.

dhw: I have offered an explanation which removes all the responsibility implied and then abandoned by your approach. And your only objection is that it gives your God a feature in common with humans, even though you agree that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: Again a misquote. God uses logic as we do. We can know no more about his thoughts.

Here is the quote: “He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logical thought” (David’s theory of evolution Part Two). It has just celebrated its first anniversary.

In the next part of our discussion, I have juxtaposed certain sections to avoid just a little of the repetition and to create continuity.

DAVID: Of course He would be interested in the results of His creations, but they were not primarily created just to be interesting, a very humanizing interpretation.

dhw: Then please tell us at long last what you think was his primary goal in creating life, including humans.

DAVID: I know His goal was the eventual production of humans.

dhw: ...why, if his goal was us, did he directly design all the dead species and food supplies that had no connection with us?

DAVID: My faith based on overwhelming evidence, and as always, He chose to evolve us, as history shows.

His choice to “evolve” us (= directly design in stages) does not explain why, if his goal was us, he directly designed all the dead species and food supplies that had no connection with us!

DAVID: My position is entirely logical. The current massive human population needs food which teh massive bush supplies. You illogical view of evolution splits it into segments, whereas, it is entirely connected.

Of course we need food. But we do not need the food supplies that no longer exist. In your own words: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW.There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms

DAVID: Your usual twisted quote out of context.

dhw: It is not a twisted quote, and there is no other possible context, and it is as obvious a truth as you can get. The current bush of food is not the bush of food for organisms that existed and disappeared millions of years ago!

DAVID: Of course the quote is true, as you try to diced up and slice up the continuity of evolution.Humans are fully part of that continuity from bacteria.

But there is no continuity between 99% of past life forms etc. and humans! Hence the absurdity of claiming that 99% of extinct life forms were “part of the goal of evolving humans” when they had no connection with humans! Again in your own words: “extinct life has no role in current time". I accepted that nothing would shake you from your faith in this illogical theory of evolution, and proposed that we should leave it at that. You agreed. I repeat the proposal.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum