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

by dhw, Thursday, February 11, 2021, 09:14 (342 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I’m glad you think there may be some “good” reasons for all the diseases that cause so much suffering. It’s a shame, though, that you can’t think of any, as it somewhat weakens your opposition to the free-for-all hypothesis I have proposed. Well done for accepting that your God might not want to watch a boring creation like the Garden of Eden.

DAVID: Back to a God who doesn't care about what happens or is OK about directionless events.

Once again avoiding the subject of your God’s possible reasons for directly designing the bacteria and viruses that cause Covid-19, Alzheimer’s, diabetes etc. You’re sure he is interested in all this, but what are you suggesting with your “doesn’t care”? Could you be proposing that he shares such human characteristics as caring about those who are suffering?

dhw: I don’t like and have never used the word “entertain”. […] Why do you try to cheapen creativity and inventiveness by using such vocabulary? If your God is interested in his own inventions – just like us humans – it is patently illogical to dismiss the hypothesis that he might have created his inventions because he wanted something interesting to do and to watch.

DAVID: Again a weak humanized God who requires self-entertainment.

Why do you insist on ignoring what I write? You are sure your God is interested in his creations. Do you regard Messrs Beethoven, Shakespeare and Michelangelo as “weak” because they wanted to create something that interested them and gave them satisfaction? Entertainment is your word, not mine. Your “humanized” argument has long since been discredited, since you agree that your God possibly (and earlier, probably) has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: I must keep repeating I don't understand your illogical complaint about my logical conclusion God chose to evolve us. You simply describe evolution and complain about it.

I do not complain about your belief that God chose to evolve us. I complain about your combined beliefs that we were his one and only purpose, and yet he directly designed millions of life forms, econiches etc. which, according to you, were “part of the goal of evolving humans” although 99% of them had no connection with humans! You admit that you have no idea why he would have chosen such a method, and yet you still twist and turn in order to avoid the illogicality of your theory.


DAVID: Is gene horizontal transfer an organismal ability, or does God step in and make the changes? Since I think God speciates, I feel He steps in.

dhw: So do you think the coelacanth was “part of the goal of evolving humans”? Sounds more like part of a free-for-all to me, with parasites finding their own means of survival.

DAVID: For you God is not allowed to control evolution. Our brain just popped up by chance.

I have never said God is not allowed to do anything! I have proposed that he chose to give evolution free rein. I have never said that our brain popped up by chance. Must I repeat the theory of cellular intelligence? Now would you please explain how the coelacanth constitutes “part of the goal of evolving humans”.


dhw: Do you think God pops in to transfer the genes from one life form to another, or preprogrammed their jumps 3.8 billion years ago? Or is it possible that the whole process is part of a great free-for-all for which he devised the mechanism? […]

DAVID: Free-floating evolution drifted from bacteria to our brain all by chance!!!! No purposeful drive allowed. Adler and I are aghast at the thought. Reality drifts along and God sits idly by.

Not by chance, as explained above. The purposeful drive is for survival. You yourself now have your God sitting idly by, watching us with interest. And you have told us that Adler does not cover your 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme or your direct dabbling theory of evolution. In any case, why do you keep bringing him into the discussion? Can’t you defend your own beliefs?

Insect plasticity

DAVID: As butterflies enter new environments their brains change:

DAVID: I'll stick to brain plasticity is widespread.

Of course it is. And the plasticity allows life forms to make changes to themselves as they “enter new environments” – as opposed to your God having to preprogramme or dabble all the changes before they “enter new environments”. And this process has gone on for thousands of millions of years, involving millions of life forms that no longer exist and had no connection with humans, and yet you stick to your mantra that all of them “were part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans.”

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum