Theodicy: solution lies in definition of God (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, September 17, 2021, 13:37 (1161 days ago) @ David Turell

Protection from mutations
QUOTE: Also unclear is why—if the mutation is so beneficial—only certain archaea species have it. One possibility: The genetic alteration comes with costs that might outweigh its benefits in less extreme environments. Hot conditions make proteins more prone to misfolding […] (David’s bold)

DAVID: This research can be applied to God's purposes in stopping translation errors. Note my bold. dhw will ask why God didn't do more. The answer is in the paragraph above concerning slowed growth.

dhw: So God creates translation errors, and stops them by creating alterations which can cause more errors. May I humbly suggest that the whole process works in reverse: that organisms adapt to their conditions, and an adaptation that works in one environment won’t work in another. If God exists, it’s all part of his great design of a free-for-all.

DAVID: Starts with false premise. Errors are spontaneous, not God's doing. Free-for-all is from your imagined strange unrecognizable god.

If God created life from scratch, then clearly he created a system that would produce errors. If the errors are spontaneous and not of his doing, he must have created a free-for-all! Nobody knows what your God is like, so how can you possibly call my proposal “strange unrecognizable” – just because I propose that he may have designed a free-for-all instead of a puppet show?

Organized chaos
QUOTE: This pathway is a riot of molecular promiscuity that would make a libertine blush, where the component molecules can unite in many different combinations. It might seem futile to hope that this chaotic dance could convey any coherent signal to direct the fate of a cell. Yet this sort of helter-skelter coupling among biomolecules may be the norm, not some weird exception. In fact, it may be why multicellular life works at all.

What a wonderful description of how a free-for-all would work! Molecules and hence cells can unite in many different combinations (chaos) but they all work (organized), and that would explain how multicellular life diversifies into different species.

DAVID: if life works on organized chaos as it now seems, no wonder mistakes happen. This is the only system of life we know, and perhaps the only one that can work that God could create.

Of course mistakes happen in a free-for-all. And maybe that is precisely what your God wanted to create. Without “mistakes”, every creature would live for ever and ever! And theodicy problem also solved: God left his invention to develop in all the different ways we know of from life’s history, creating what was “good” for them, even if it was “bad” for others.

DAVID: What you have mentioned about my quotes concerning God's thoughts behind his actions are all my guesswork[…]

dhw[…] but you express your guesses as beliefs (= supposed truth), whereas I present alternative theories, not fixed beliefs. You’ve now resorted to the fact that we can’t know the truth as a means of avoiding discussion of your own fixed beliefs and their illogical implications.

DAVID: We all have our own imagined visions of God. Of course I have fixed logical beliefs, whioe you are amorphous.

In relation to the history of life and to theodicy, your fixed beliefs are so amorphous as to require an explanation from God, since you can’t find any logic behind his design of extinct life forms that have no connection with what you believe to have been his purpose (us), and your explanation of “bad” is that one day we shall find out that it’s all part of his “good intentions”.

DAVID: Remember, possible or probable and mimicking are guesses.

dhw: […] why do you try to dismiss those of your guesses that I use to formulate images of a possible God’s possible nature and purpose?

DAVID: My God fits logical conclusions from His works.

Your guesses include thought patterns similar to ours, enjoyment of creation, watching his creations with interest, wanting us to recognize his work, and wanting a relationship with him. Why do you try to dismiss them all when I use them to link his works to his purpose?

dhw: […] the dismissal of your own guesses if they don't fit in with your fixed beliefs make it all the more apparent that you cannot find any logic in your own theories of evolution and of theodicy.

DAVID: Why can't you accept that point that God chose to evolve us from bacteria over a long time. It is entirely logical to me. Your illogical complaint escapes me.

What you desperately try to escape from is your fixed belief that your God deliberately designed the “evolution” of ALL life forms from bacteria, including countless life forms that had no connection with humans (plus food), although his one and only purpose was to design humans (plus food). Please stop editing your theory in order to leave out its illogical components.