Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 31, 2023, 16:41 (337 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: […] Of course, He wanted what He created. You are still wrapped up with the Bible's God. Giving us free-will allows evil to appear. Free-wheeling molecular reactions result in bad mutations, but the speed at which life runs requires that rapidity. He knew about the problems you raise. Note safeguards in the genome.

dhw: Yet again, this is not just about molecules! If your God is all-knowing, of course he knew all about the problems I raise: as the creator of all things, he therefore knew that what he was creating would result in every disease, sin, evil act, disaster etc. throughout life’s history. If “He wanted what He created”, he must have wanted all of that. (He would also have wanted all the beautiful things, but those are not the problem here.) And so your objection to my alternative theories is based on your own theory that your God wanted to create all the evils and diseases and catastrophes and horrors he knew would result from his creations. Your God is not only an inefficient designer, but he is also a sadist.

It is partially about molecular reactions, as described above. For His own reasons He had to include viruses and bacteria, some of which go bad. Again theodicy. He gave us free will obviously realizing some of us would create evil. I accept that He did all that. Are you inferring your unknown stupe of a God didn't realize what would happen. I'd love to hear how your guy viewed this.


DAVID: Your experimenting, goalless God is like none I recognize.

dhw: In none of my theories is he goalless. How many folk do you think would recognize your inefficient sadist?

No onev would listen to your distortion of my God.


DAVID: He creates the same cumbersome evolution as mine, but because He is not all-knowing suddenly His evolution is OK.

dhw: It is because his experiments are successful that two of my versions are OK, and the third is OK because in a free-for-all, the enjoyment lies precisely in NOT knowing what will happen next.

DAVID: Weird. By wandering into an endpoint of humans, that makes it all correct. Both our God's are all-knowing enough to create life, but then yours loses some of His mental ability. God is continuously the same but yours varies in mental ability as He progresses.

dhw: There is no “correctness” if he began his experiments as a voyage of discovery, learning, inventing new things. The “voyage” would have been what he wanted. When you learn something new, is that synonymous with losing some of your mental ability? (See “Neanderthal experimentation” in “Miscellany PART TWO”.)

Again a purely humanized God, with a purpose to enjoy Himself.


DAVID: See Wiki on the subject:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_paradox
QUOTE: "The conclusion is that the statement "God can do anything" needs to be qualified. By this logic God cannot do both of two things that are mutually contradictory. C. S. Lewis says that logical contradictions are not a "thing". Rather they are nonsense. The question (and therefore the perceived paradox) is meaningless. Nonsense does not suddenly acquire sense and meaning with the addition of the two words, "God can" before it."

dhw: A good description of your non-sense theory: An all-knowing, all-powerful God who invented an inefficient method that forced him to design 99 out of 100 species that had nothing do with his one and only purpose (sapiens plus food) is a piece of non-sense which “makes sense only to God” (i.e. not to you). Similarly there is no sense in claiming that your God is the all-powerful, all-knowing creator of all things, and then claiming that he is not responsible for all the bad things he alone must have created. Now please tell me what "mutually contradictory" things you have found in my alternatives.

I have never heard how your God handles bad bacteria, viruses, evil, molecular mistakes, etc.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum