More "miscellany" PARTS ONE and TWO (General)

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 28, 2023, 18:40 (425 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Of course. That is the point. God designs accepting success and failure to survive. I assume God designed the evolutionary history we see. Which contains both.

dhw: If God exists, of course he designed the evolutionary history, and of course extinction means “failure to survive”. But that does not mean your God made mistakes and conducted experiments that failed! If he WANTED species to come and go (= failure to survive) in an ever changing world, then he designed what he WANTED, and so he did not make mistakes and his experiments were not failures!

Finally, you accept what I have been presenting about God and evolution. Evolutionary process implies failure happens. God did not fail.


Fungus kills nematodes

DAVID: The weaverbird is a perfect example of God's designing. […]

dhw: They are both perfect examples of what you say your God designed, though they have nothing to do with our own evolution or our food supply. So are they mistakes?

DAVID: No mistakes as they have a role in the overall ecosystems that feed us.

dhw: Please tell us what role you think the weaverbird’s nest plays in our food supply.

No reply.

Why reply to a constantly repeated question? Oh, well, the bird is a part of an ecosystem that modifies the Earth into a livable planet that supplies our food.


Body heat
(Apologies for repetition of points made on the "David's theory" thread, but there are a few variations here.

DAVID: Luck is your invention for God to overcome.

dhw: Luck is not my invention. It is you who quote Raup (survival depends on luck) and you who tell us that your God did not control environmental changes, but had to fit his designs to whatever conditions he was presented with. [...] Please stop pretending that I “invented” your beliefs.

DAVID: Your distortions of the ideas I present result in denigrations of my point of view. Survival depends on luck is Raup's point. So Raup is telling us God designs well, and God surpasses the bad luck, because in my view, He can design around it.

dhw: You have just accused me of inventing the point about “luck”, and now you say I distort your ideas. If God “surpasses the bad luck”, I have not invented the point about luck and I have not distorted anything. I don’t know if Raup praises God for his good designs, but I do know that you call 99% of God’s designs mistakes and failed experiments. If survival depends on luck, and if conditions over which he has no control demand the design of species that have no connection with his one and only purpose, then I can understand you regarding them as mistakes and failures. But then you must say goodbye to your concept of an all-powerful God who is in tight control of evolution. And since he invented the whole process (if he exists), I would suggest that your view of his dependence on luck, together with his fallibility, are far more humanizing and derogatory than any of the alternative views that I have offered.

A continuing failure/refusal to understand my point of view. An all-powerful God does not need any 'lucky' circumstances. He can design for/around any conditions present.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum