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

by dhw, Saturday, February 06, 2021, 11:29 (1384 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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: My answer is still He may a good reason we do not yet understand.

That’s faith for you. Just like Dawkins, who hopes to find a natural reason for what is now "imperfectly understood".

DAVID: Gut bacteria help fight our battles:
https://theconversation.com/fecal-microbe-transplants-help-cancer-patients-respond-to-i...

DAVID: This may be the beginning of seeing God's reasons for gut bacteria. Good, not bad.

We now have bacteria that cause dreadful diseases and bacteria that help fight dreadful diseases: a microcosmic example of the world as we know it, including human nature – a great big mix of what we regard as good and bad, beautiful and ugly, happy and sad, light and dark. Fascinating. If your God exists, I can well imagine that this is precisely what he wanted, but you simply can’t believe your God would have wanted what he created, and would have created what he wanted, even though you are sure he is interested in watching it.

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.

dhw: 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 [...] 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: All you have posed is that I have no option to change my mind as a result of our discussions.

Apart from the fact that this quotation (“He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logic”), robs you of your “humanizing” argument against my logical alternatives to your illogical theory, please explain why you have changed your mind and now think it impossible for the creator to have created a being with thought patterns and emotions similar to his own.

DAVID: […] 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.

dhw: Yet again: If God exists, of course he chose evolution as his creation mechanism. What does not follow naturally is the argument that [..] his only purpose was to design H. sapiens, [and yet] 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: I still find this objection as totally illogical, as previously explained.

You have never explained it. Indeed, you have agreed that you have no idea why he would have fulfilled his one and only purpose by designing life forms and econiches that had no connection to his purpose.

dhw: Again in your own words: “extinct life has no role in current time"..

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

dhw: 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: You still insist upon illogical but accept the large bush for food. I only see logic.

The large bush of food for humans has no connection with the large bushes of food for life forms that preceded and had no connection with humans. In your own words (how many more times?) “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.”

NEW SPECIES
DAVID: […] 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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Once again, it is a huge bush of food supply for all.

As above, the food supply for the millions of dead life forms was not the food supply for humans, and so it makes no sense to argue that all the dead forms and their food supply were “part of the goal of evolving humans”. I don’t know why you have reneged on our earlier agreement that you have no idea why he would have used such a method to achieve such a purpose, but that is what you believe, nothing will shift you, and so we should leave it at that.