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

by David Turell , Monday, November 01, 2021, 14:37 (1116 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Totally twisted invention. Realize all errors are future events. God knew His life system would work, realized future errors would happen and added editing systems. Our smarts allow us to correct some. But we are alive through God's actions. Dayenu!!!

dhw: If your God exists, of course we are alive through his actions. But that has nothing to do with the problem of theodicy. There is no twisting. You have argued that your all-powerful God could not have invented any other system, and there were some errors he was unable to correct, both of which can only mean that his powers are limited. My alternative is that your all-powerful designed what he wanted to design.

Same strange confused objection: the correct way to look at it is the system God used to make life exist has no errors in design. The required use of reacting molecules creates the future errors in the high speed functions, for which editing is present and highly effective. It cannot be perfect. Why do you dwell on the dark side?

Transposons
DAVID: God does not control our active cells. His designs created many multiple processes acting automatically in concert with life emerging.

dhw: Why do you always insert the word automatically? That is the whole issue. Still with my theist cap on, I’m proposing that your God designed a mechanism which could autonomously create multiple processes acting in concert with changing conditions. You have rightly pointed out that this theory is not accepted by the scientific world. I have pointed out that yours isn’t accepted either. Nobody knows the truth. (See also "Miscellany".)

DAVID: I shouldn't insert the word automaticity!!!! We shouldn't debate??? I have a fixed viewpoint to argue about how living biochemistry works. All the cellular processes I have studied show a series of molecular reactions to achieve a result, responding to all various stimuli.

dhw: You insert it as if it were a fact. That is what we are debating. And yes, your viewpoint is so fixed that you dismiss alternatives, even though your theories are just as unproven as the alternatives.

The intelligent cell theory is all opinion. Still 50/50, and I'll stick to my 50