Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Tuesday, January 09, 2024, 17:51 (317 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Language games again. Cart before horse. Creation then becomes the purpose, and God’s enjoyment etc. is needed if it is to happen. That does not mean that God “needs” the enjoyment of creation. You have not responded to my own question, which was: “Did he, in your opinion, “need” to have his work recognized, “need” to be worshipped, “need” to have a relationship with us” – all of which you have posited in the past? Why do you think they are less “needy” and less “human” than the theory that he creates out of enjoyment and interest?

More word games. God created what He wished without needing recognition, worship, relationship as driving forces. In the past I have offered God MIGHT have secondarily had thoughts in those regards.

99.9% v 0.1%

DAVID: I'm not disagreeing. My triangle resembles a bush shape, and is simply another way to view it conceptually.

dhw: If you are not disagreeing, then please stop telling us that 99.9% of species led to us and our food because the bush of life is a triangle. 0.1% of species led to us plus our food, and 99.9% were branches of the bush that did not lead to us or our food.

The 99.9% are the ancestors of the currently living 0.1%

Newly found bacterial weapon

dhw: There is no evidence that 3.8 billion years ago your God compiled a list of instructions for every innovation, lifestyle, strategy etc. in life’s history, or that he popped in to perform ad hoc operations or issue instructions. Try again.

DAVID: Don't need to. Explain the design you see that keeps you agnostic.

dhw: The complexity of all living things, right down to the individual cell, points to design. Evolution by way of cellular intelligence does not preclude design! Speciation has stopped for the time being – we are going through a period of stasis – and so if you reject Shapiro's theory because there is no evidence, you will have also to reject your own theory of divine pre-preprogramming and dabbling because there is no evidence.

Shapiro's theory is subject to real study. God's existence is another form of study. Your comparison fails.

DAVID: The immune system is fully automatic.

DAVID: You have the ability to go back take comments out of context. The immune system follows DNA instructions to automatically make new antibodies as necessary.

dhw: There is absolutely no context which can nullify your clear statement that “only the immune system has this ‘brain’ that you wish for in other cells.” I’m sorry, but my aim in all these discussions is to discuss possible solutions to all the unsolved problems of our existence. The discussions should clarify these ideas, but there is no clarification if from one week to the next (sometimes one day to the next) you state the exact opposite of what you have already agreed to.

I guess I need to spend more time to be sure I am clear in my answers. I said the immune system is automatic. My cell brain comment was meant to be taken as sarcasm. I should have used the word with the sentence. My fixed beliefs don't change. The biochemistry of life is automatic.

Theodicy
DAVID: Note Godel tells us God must be considered as perfect in every aspect. […]

dhw: […] It’s no use you telling me that you’ve read a book which says God is perfect if you can’t respond to arguments that suggest God is not perfect (whatever “perfect” may mean).[…]

DAVID: You have been given the answers theodicy offers. You don't accept them. End of story.

dhw: Theodicy asks a question. It doesn’t offer answers. I don’t accept the answers that you have given, and I suggest there is no point in your raising the subject again just because somebody has said that God is perfect. I might as well say: Dawkins calls God a delusion. Does that really get us anywhere?

Faith in God is amazing isn't it. Theodicy is your problem, not mine.