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

by dhw, Tuesday, November 02, 2021, 12:18 (32 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 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. […] 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.

DAVID: 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?

Of course the errors are in the design, if the design requires actions subject to error! And the imperfections – if we expand this particular field to the whole of life – are the subject of the theodicy debate! It is the dark side of life that causes believers to ask: why is there a dark (bad) side if God is all light (good)? You constantly try to solve the theodicy problem by trying to ignore the dark side.

The good viruses do
QUOTE: Scientists may always dispute whether viruses are alive or not, but they can hopefully agree on the importance of viruses to life as we know it. “However you want to think about life,” says Villarreal, “viruses are going to be there.'"

DAVID: Viruses have to be here and play a role. So do bacteria. And yes some roles are bad.

And you want us to discuss theodicy but you don’t want us to take any notice of the bad.

Transposons
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.

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

The theory that all cellular decisions are automatic and preprogrammed or dabbled by God is all opinion.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum