Back to theodicy and David's theories (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Tuesday, February 16, 2021, 12:15 (1158 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: If God designed the system, the bad bacteria and the bad viruses that lead to appalling suffering and death (not to mention urine infections), then there is a problem for those who think of their God as kind and caring (hence “theodicy”). I don’t know why you refuse even to consider the possibility that your God did NOT design them all, and did NOT make mistakes, but deliberately created a free-for-all […]

DAVID: I believed in God and have a vision of His personality. It doesn't ever cover your thoughts about Him and his purposes or intents. My God would not have loosey-goosey uncontrolled evolution.

Do tell us your vision of his personality. So far you have only told us your vision of what is NOT his personality, but you have been absolutely specific about his purpose: all he wanted was to design H. sapiens, and since you deny him the freedom to want a free-for-all, he is also a control freak. This blinkered vision leads you to the illogical theory that although he only had one purpose in mind (to design humans and their food supply), he proceeded to design millions of life forms and their food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans, and you have no idea why he would have done so.

Viral DNA in us

DAVID: I assume God designed viruses like all of life (recognizing viruses are half-alive). Viruses play a role in evolution which makes that design reasonable. TDP-43 offers good control of events, until it is damaged or changed. This is a mistake by a molecule. I don't think we should blame God. Normal TDP-43 is God's designed protection, but molecules can make their own mistakes outside of His controls.

dhw: Same again: God designed the bacteria and the viruses and the molecules in such a way that their behaviour could lead to MS, ALS, dementia, cancer etc., but apparently the design is not the fault of the designer, and we should only focus on all the nice things that bacteria, viruses and molecules get up to. That’s the way to solve the problem of theodicy!

DAVID: I have to return to we don't understand everything, but will find OK answers later on.

Why don’t you return to the fact that since you have no idea how your beliefs can fit in with the facts of life’s history, your beliefs might be wrong?

dhw: You are sure he watches his creations (including humans) with interest (“entertain” is your expression). How do you know that he didn’t want to create something he could watch with interest?

DAVID: Again , pure humanizing.
Please stop playing this cracked record. You have agreed that he possibly (and earlier probably) has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: Evolution connects all of us. And as usual you forget a vast bush means food for all.

dhw: Common descent connects all of “us” with bacteria, but not with every other life form that ever existed. Re food and all the unconnected species, I’ll repeat your own words, since you keep trying to forget them:
“The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” , “extinct life has no role in current time”. […] I wish you would leave it at that.

DAVID: You/we can leave it at food supply is vital.

Food supply is and was vital to ALL forms of life, not just humans. If only you would stop repeating these obfuscations and self-contradictions, we could move on.

Transposons

dhw: Thank you for agreeing that the need for survival was the driving force even for early sapiens with their giant brain. The fact that the drive for survival has led us to explore other fields of activity does not invalidate its continued importance to many of our products. Stasis is explained by the fact that throughout life’s history and human history, there have been long periods when life forms continued to exist without the need or the new ideas that can lead to further developments.

DAVID: 'Worried about survival' does not mean that worry itself caused their big brain. As a young adult my worry about survival led me to pursue medicine as a career. Stop distorting.

It is you who have distorted the argument by introducing the word “worried”. You have agreed that the drive for survival is and was the prime purpose of all life forms, including humans. Of course it’s not “worry” that changes brains! My proposal is that it’s the need to cope with new conditions or to implement new ideas that causes brain change.