Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, March 15, 2024, 11:35 (251 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: My alternatives suggest a purposeful God who achieved his purpose by one of two possible forms of experimentation and/or the invention of a free-for-all. These make perfect sense, are not mainstream, but are just as valid as yours.

DAVID: Of course, any God is valid. Mine is from my teachings from mainstream Adler. Yours follows process and deistic theologies, not mainstream. We will always disagree about God.

You never stop dodging, do you? You wrote:
DAVID: I follow theistic thinking as presented by several sources. I have never found the sort of God you describe in any of it.

I pointed out two schools of theistic thought that you apparently didn’t know about, whereupon you dodged to “mainstream”. Then what did you say? If they’re not mainstream, they’re “not worth using”. So I pointed out that your absurdly illogical theory of evolution, which makes your God’s design “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient”, is not mainstream, and you defended it: “My view of God is mine and just as valid as any other”. On the one hand, any theory that is not mainstream is “not worth using”, but if it’s yours, it’s just as valid as any other. The term for such blatant inconsistency is “double standards”.

DAVID: Ah, you make more sense than God! Human sense is not equal to God sense at any time. God logic is not human logic when it comes to how to create.

dhw: Stop pretending that your senseless theory is the objective truth! My theories make more sense than yours (unless you think you are God), because each one offers a logical reason for the 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with current species. Your theory makes your God look messy and inefficient. Maybe he is. Whereabouts in mainstream theology did you find that? Nobody knows the objective truth!

DAVID: Agreed above.

So stop all this nonsense about mainstream, and stop all this silly pretence that a criticism of your absurd theory is a criticism of God.

Experimentation

dhw: I'm asking YOU what YOU meant by “autonomous experimentation”, because YOU thought it was a possibility. You refuse to answer.[…]

DAVID: Why do you forget I forge my theories based on what scientists present, thus a Behe sample on the exact subject. I know your theologies are various and based on some experts in the field.

There is no point in pretending that science supports theism and ignoring the fact that probably just as many scientists support atheism. Science is no more capable of proving or disproving God than philosophy, theology, or you. And still you dodge the question of what alterations your “autonomous experimentation” can produce, and why an autonomous mechanism (possibly designed by your God) would be incapable of producing the innovations that lead to speciation.

DAVID: As for cellular intelligence, it is all coded into DNA as instructions for necessary actions, so cells LOOK as if intelligent. How does the biochemistry of cells develop conceptual material?

Back you go to your godlike knowledge that what LOOKS intelligent can’t possibly BE intelligent. How does the biochemistry of cells develop the intelligence to develop any kind of material? You tell me. Nobody has yet found the source of intelligence/consciousness (the two go together, no matter what may be the degree). See "Immunity system complexity" for the feasibility you are now denying.

First cause

DAVID: Logically there must be a first cause. Undeniable. Living biochemistry requires a designing mind. At this point you and I part company.

dhw: No we don’t. I accept the logic of the design argument. But this is balanced by the illogicality of an unknown, immaterial, conscious mind simply being there for ever without having any source. […]

DAVID: Back to equally probable on the uncomfortable picket fence.[…]

dhw: Equally improbable, and nothing like as uncomfortable as trying to leap over a chasm and realizing midway that there is no solid ground to land on. But fortunately, if you are wrong, you will never know it, just as the atheist can never know that he/she was right. Keep your faith. Just stop pretending that you know all your God’s thought patterns, emotions, purposes, methods and attributes, and remember that if your views are as valid as any others, mainstream or not, their views are as valid as yours, mainstream or not.

DAVID: As is your agnosticism. It won't punish you.

Thank you for indirectly acknowledging that my alternative theories of evolution and of God are as valid as yours. I hope that will stop you once and for all from pretending that you know God’s intentions, methods and nature.