Theodicy: the 'good' view of viruses (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 26, 2021, 13:59 (39 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Again using my guesses about God's possible reactions as facts. All guesses.[[/b]

dhw: NOBODY knows the facts – even concerning God’s existence. But if these guesses are what you believe (you are sure, or you state them as facts), you can have no complaints if I extrapolate conclusions that arise logically from your own guesses.

DAVID: If you wish to extrapolate from my guesswork, of course you may, resulting into guesswork extrapolations.

Yes, all our theories are guesswork, and we can only test them for their feasibility. This should once and for all end your complaints that my logical theistic theories of evolution must be invalid because they are based on possible human attributes, since you yourself agree that your God probably/possibly has human attributes.

DAVID: The American rate of cancer is 20%. Most viruses and bacteria are useful. Your tunnel vision sees only bad.

dhw: Stats vary, but even 20% denotes a vast amount of suffering. And as you keep forgetting, it is the “bad” that creates the problem of theodicy.

DAVID: The 20% is total cases. My own personal two were totally easily eradicated.

Lucky you. Do you then deny that cancer causes a great deal of suffering, as do the diseases resulting from what you believe is your God’s direct design of “bad” bacteria and viruses? And do you deny that the whole problem of theodicy arises from the fact that “bad” exists, and believers try to find an explanation for the existence of “bad” if the creator of life himself is all good?

QUOTE: “Transposons have the capacity to generate a lot of gene regulatory diversity and could help us to understand species-specific differences in the world.”

dhw: Do you know who first proposed the existence of transposons? One Barbara McClintock, a Nobel-prize-winning scientist who was a firm believer in cellular intelligence.

DAVID: Widely known fact. So?

I mention it because of your absurd argument that her championship of cellular intelligence is somehow out of date just because she proposed it many years ago.

dhw: The problem of theodicy is why – according to you – he also designed bad viruses and bacteria! Your answer so far has been that we don’t know, but one day we shall find out what were his good intentions, so let’s ignore all the nasty diseases that are caused by the “baddies”.

DAVID: As an MD I treated them, and they are discussed because i introduced the issue.

And now presumably you wish you hadn’t, because all you want to talk about is God’s goodness.

Theodicy: the good view of viruses
dhw: So viruses can be creative as well as destructive. If your God created them, and they “dabbled” both creatively and destructively, it would seem that he gave them the freedom to do their own thing. Thank you for supporting my theoretical explanation of theodicy.

DAVID: I view it as God using them as tools in common design.

I hope we’re not going to have “common design” thrust down our throats as the new answer to everything. Now please let us have your explanation for the destructive viruses.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum