Miscellany (General)

by dhw, Thursday, July 15, 2021, 10:55 (100 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My point is the 'bad' bacteria is our human interpretation and God may have designed them as 'good'.

dhw: So who would the murderous ones have been “good” for? See "Theodicy...” for a full discussion. (We can drop “Role in human therapy” as it deals with the same subject.)

DAVID: The article points out so-called 'bad' may act to block 'bad'.

All of which raises the question of why your God deliberately designed ‘bad’ in the first place. See the “Theodicy” thread.

Proper Big Bang view
DAVID: If we are sure the universe had a beginning,therefore we have absolute proof of God. […] Combined with the designed complexity of living biochemistry, the probability of His existence becomes very strong.[dhw’s bold]

dhw: […] We don’t know if the Big Bang happened, and we don’t know what preceded it if it did happen. If it did, I have no idea how you can possibly claim it provides absolute proof of God. […] Why do you think a sourceless conscious before is possible but a sourceless unconscious before is impossible? But yes, the complexity of biochemistry is indeed a good argument for the existence of a designing mind or minds.[…]

DAVID: Back to design. Only a designing mind could have created our reality. You have, previously, raised the issue of a chance mulling together of energies to do it.

I challenged your statement that the BB provides absolute proof of God. How can it possibly do so? But I agreed with your good design argument. So you proceed to ignore my bolded question, and repeat the design argument! Yet more dodging!

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum