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

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 02, 2021, 15:42 (25 days ago) @ dhw

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?

dhw: 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.

It requires the thought that God is not all light (good): that He wished for the best result is shown by his editing systems. The quality of the design requires using error prone freely acting molecules to create life. There are no errors in a design if it is the only one available for use.

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.

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

Unfair. I brought up the bad, but do not sccept your interpretation

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.

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

Thanks for repeating my point.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum