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

by dhw, Friday, February 05, 2021, 08:47 (98 days ago) @ David Turell

Biological Complexity

QUOTE: Thousands of publications over the past decade have revealed that the trillions of bacteria in the gut could have profound effects on the brain, and might be tied to a whole host of disorders.

DAVID: Bacteria have been allowed to survive while 99% of all species disappeared because they were meant to continue to have these roles as God designed.

These bacteria are harmful. The problem you raised originally but have since tried to avoid is why your God meant them to continue being harmful.

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Once I write something and reconsider, the old quote should be allowed to disappear. But I suppose you never alter your thoughts over time.

It is not a misquote, and I have no idea why you should wish to withdraw it, since it makes perfectly good sense that there should be common ground between the creator (if he exists) and the creation. So why shouldn’t we accept that your God may have thought patterns similar to ours? But this has become a regular feature of our discussions. You also try to disown your agreement that past food supplies have nothing to do with the present, and that extinct life plays no role in current life, although these make perfectly good sense. It makes no difference, however, to the arguments themselves. I use your words to put my side of the argument. The fact that you agreed with me in the past and have now decided to disagree does not change the logic of my case or render your case any more logical.

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

dhw: 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: What is evolution but just that? Your objection is total confusion of historical fact. You have agreed, somewhere in the past, that God could have chosen to use evolution as his creation mechanism. Teh rest of my approach follows naturally.

Yet again: If God exists, of course he chose evolution as his creation mechanism. What does not follow naturally is the argument that if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens, he directly designed millions of life forms, econiches, lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders as “part of the goal of evolving humans”, although 99% of them had no connection with humans.

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.

dhw: 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: You weird reasoning that past evolution cannot be connected to recent evolution.

That is not my reasoning. See below.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: The bold is absolutely correct. It is your segmental view of evolution that is totally illogical. We can end on that.

We agree that all life forms are descended from bacteria, and so in that sense evolution can be called continuous. But if there is no connection between 99% of life forms and humans, then it is clearly illogical to say that all life forms were “part of the goal of evolving humans”. In that sense, evolution is segmental. And that should be that.


DAVID: We know species come and go. One obvious attribute of the evolution process is increasing complexity from the beginning, as I've previously noted, but a drive to extreme diversification is obvious. Why? My thought is that God's new various designs guarantee life will survive all sorts of adverse events.

If your God is there designing whatever he wants to design, then of course life will survive if he wants it to! The drive to diversification makes no sense at all, however, if you insist that your God’s only purpose was to design H. sapiens and his food supply.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum