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

by dhw, Saturday, October 30, 2021, 08:24 (29 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You asked what I meant by “good” and I explained, but you won't reciprocate. I have to admit that I'm human. However, it seems we have the same theistic theory: namely, your God gave these organisms the freedom to act autonomously. The only difference is you think that despite his all-powerfulness he was forced to do so against his will, whereas I suggest that in his all-powerfulness he created what he wanted to create.

DAVID: And I think it is the only working system He could create.

That’s exactly what I mean: despite his being all-powerful, he had to design an imperfect system with errors he couldn’t correct.

Transposons
Your claim that there is no current support (apart from Shapiro) for the theory of cellular intelligence has been demolished on the “Giraffe plumbing” thread.

dhw: But of course the theory is not proven. Nor is yours. That again is a point you refuse to acknowledge: namely, that what controls the actions of cells remains a mystery. Do you think science accepts your theory that God did it all?

DAVID: The mystery can be explained by accepting that all automatic biochemical reactions in concert as in the way an orchestra delivers Beethoven's 5th produce living matter.

All members of the orchestra are autonomous intelligent beings who cooperate with one another and with the conductor. You have emphasized the fact that science generally has not accepted the theory of cellular intelligence. Now please tell us whether science generally has accepted the theory that your God controls the actions of cells.

Theodicy: the good view of viruses

DAVID: I've explained the bad. You don't accept the answers.

dhw: Your explanation, as I understand it, is that your God designed the bad viruses, knew they would do nasty things, but had good intentions, and one day we'll find out what they were. (See also under "Miscellany".)

DAVID: NO!!! God designed bacteria and viruses for good required purposes, but had to accept that sometimes bad results happen as in molecular mistakes. Our living system is the only one possible. Moment by moment mistakes are minimal but additive, so we have distress. I accept what is as it works. It is not God's fault.

dhw: So we’ll ignore the earlier quote about good intentions, and simply focus on your God’s inability to control the system he designed because although he is all-powerful he was forced to design it that way and had to leave it to humans to try and correct the errors he couldn’t cope with.

DAVID: Always the negative view.

But this is your view! He “had to” accept bad results because he could neither prevent them nor, in some cases, correct them. Why is this positive, and why do you regard the theory that he designed exactly what he wanted to design as negative?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum