Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, July 02, 2020, 10:48 (400 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Once again you are imagining a God with a human personality which I do not accept. My God knows exactly what He wants and does it.

dhw: So does mine. Why do you regard a “perfect” God, who deliberately designs the imperfect system we know, as being more “human” and less purposeful than a “perfect” God who is unable to design a system without imperfections?

DAVID: You refuse to accept the point that a high-speed living biological system cannot be perfect. Are you campaigning for a 'perfect' God that can create it? Your definition of a perfect God doesn't exist.

I have proposed that if he exists, your God deliberately designed a system with errors, because endings are as integral to life as beginnings. Can you imagine a planet full of organisms that never die but go on producing more and more and more….? The idea is absurd. Now please answer my bolded question.

DAVID: (under ”brain problems”): this is just one area in the embryo where mistakes can occur. As a cardiologist in training I learned about congenital heart defects. Luckily those can be surgically corrected. I can accept a God who can't stop these errors. It is interesting that dhw can't.

I can’t accept your claim that your God is perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing and yet unable to design a system without errors. I have suggested that it would make more sense if he deliberately designed it with errors, but you choose to ignore this suggestion. Once more, please answer the bolded question above…

dhw: ...instead of tying yourself in knots trying to excuse your perfect God for creating an imperfect system (that is your “theodicy”), why not consider the possibility that he deliberately created a system that would go wrong? My proposal above offers you a solution to theodicy (as it can be extended to cover the whole of life), but you can’t be bothered even to consider it.

DAVID: No, I don't accept your God with His human personality. The many safeguards in the biochemistry of life means He tried to stop as many errors as could be stopped. The errors were not planned on his part.

dhw: Authoritatively stated, and pretty degrading to your perfect God, who simply did his best to make up for the imperfect and uncontrollable system he created.

DAVID: Not degrading except as in your eyes. The self-correcting and safeguard systems in living organisms shows God knew it wouldn't work perfectly. I've produced a multitude of articles about safeguards showing required design, stating the safeguards must have been present when the advanced state appeared. Remember?

And I remember proposing that the “safeguards” could just as well be the responses of autonomous organisms finding their own ways of solving the problems you believe God set them, whether deliberately or otherwise. I’m surprised you don’t regard God “trying to stop errors” as degradingly humanizing him. At least in my alternative proposal he does exactly what he wants to do.

DAVID: Same list of complaints. As for thoughts, our logic and God's logic are the same, nothing more. we cannot know His underlying reasons for his actions.

dhw: Of course we can’t know his reasons, but how do you know his logic is the same as ours if you can’t understand why he did what he did?

DAVID: I've explained what I think His reasoning is about complexification, as a prime example of how I attempt to understand why and what He has done. It implies His logical thought, similar to ours.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum