https://evolutionnews.org/2024/03/a-misguided-critique-of-irreducible-complexity/

"I myself am a skeptical theist — meaning that I believe we should be extremely cautious about intuiting what God would or would not do.

***

"Given that God has exhaustive knowledge and is much wiser than we are, it would not at all be surprising if God has knowledge that we lack access to — knowledge that is relevant to one or more of his decisions. This has applicability to the problem of evil, since it is difficult for us to evaluate, from our limited vantagepoint, whether God plausibly might have morally sufficient justification for allowing natural and personal evil to exist in the world. This is not to say that the problem of evil has no evidential force against theism, but, rather, that we should be cautious about overstating what we can assert with confidence about what God would or would not do or allow to happen. Moreover, there is a problem of diminishing returns by multiplying examples. If God has a morally sufficient justification for permitting one instance of evil (no matter how unexpected), he may well have a similar justification for permitting similar instances of evil. Thus, one cannot simply add successive examples indefinitely and expect the argument against theism to continue to grow in strength. Instances of evil in the world are therefore not epistemically independent. (my bold)

"A popular objection that surfaces for the skeptical theist is that it serves as a double-edged sword, since it implies that the God hypothesis has no, or at least very limited, predictive power. If one cannot confidently say what God is likely to do, how can one mount an argument for theism? But one does not need to assert that God probably has a particular intention, but rather only that such an intention is not wildly implausible (whereas it is absurdly improbable on the falsity of the hypothesis). So long as that likelihood ratio is top-heavy, it provides evidence that confirms theism."

Comment: I can readily accept his approach. Note my bold. With God's vast knowledge how can we humans outguess His motives? Or worse, give Him obviously human motives?

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGwHVKrNCLMBRGrsmgtCWGPdBrW

"Infants also acquire bacteria and other microorganisms as they’re born, which fire up their immune and digestive systems and can even aid brain development. Now, research in mice suggests that microbes play an important role in babies’ lives long before that point by promoting the health of the placenta during pregnancy.

"Scientists took pregnant mice and treated some of them with broad-spectrum antibiotics, wiping out the flora living on and in their bodies. In the latter group, the mice’s placentas were much smaller and had fewer blood vessels, which led to smaller baby mice.

"Further investigation revealed that microbiota-deficient murine moms have fewer short-chain fatty acids, small fats which are mainly produced by bacteria in the gut. When the scientists added these fatty acids to the diets of pregnant, antibiotic-treated mice, they saw a corresponding increase in the size and blood vessel complexity of their placentas.

"In humans, deficits in placental size and blood vessel complexity are associated with diseases like preeclampsia and increase the likelihood that a child will develop chronic health problems. The researchers hope their findings will advance our understanding of how microbiomes affect placental development, leading to better health outcomes for all."

Comment: note the need for friendly bacteria in the uterus and the gut. These same bacteria, accidently in the wrong place, can be unfriendly. That is not God's fault.

https://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sciencemagazine/15_april_2022/MobilePagedArticle...

"In vertebrates, precise orchestration of immune responses largely relies on two major subsets of T lymphocytes. CD8+ T cells are cytotoxic and can eliminate virus-infected host cells, whereas CD4+ T cells provide signals that help the activation of CD8+ T cells and antibody production by B lymphocytes. To avoid hyperactivation that may lead to irreparable tissue damage but also to prevent inadvertent responses against host tissues, a complex set of regulatory mechanisms exist. CD4+ regulatory T cells (Tregs ) have been well characterized ....On page 265 of this issue, Li et al. provide evidence that a subset of human CD8+ T cells also selectively suppress pathogenic CD4+ T cells during autoimmune or infectious diseases, including flu and COVID-19.

***

"Overall, Li et al. unveil an intriguing population of human regulatory CD8+ T cells that can suppress inflammatory responses through killing activated pathogenic T cells. Targeting KIR+CD8+ T cells might emerge as a new strategy to suppress undesirable self-reactivity in autoimmune or infectious diseases."

The article itself:

https://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sciencemagazine/15_april_2022/MobilePagedArticle...

"CONCLUSION: We identify KIR+CD8+ T cells as an important regulatory T cell subset in humans. They are induced as part of the response during an autoimmune reaction or infection and may act as a negative feedback mechanism to specifically suppress the self-reactive or otherwise pathogenic cells without affecting the immune responses against pathogens. This subset of CD8+ Tregs appears to play an important role in maintaining peripheral tolerance, which is distinct from and likely complementary to that of CD4+ Tregs. Our findings also provide insights into understanding the relationship between autoimmunity and infectious diseases and into the development of potential therapeutic approaches targeting KIR+CD8+ T cells to suppress undesirable self-reactivity in autoimmune disorders and infectious diseases."

Comment: Immune cells attack very discriminately and almost often recognize body 'self' cells. God set up this mechanism to make sure no mistakes would occur, but of course they happen. God knew His system for life's biochemistry was the only one available, but high-speed molecular reactions using free molecules could have errors. God accepted the risks even with editing systems..

dhw: With your various posts, you have now offered various possible answers to the problem of theodicy, which asks why an all-good, all-powerful God created a world full of what we call bad. Here are your answers: 1) We should focus on the good and not the bad. 2) What we call “bad” might not be bad. 3) The all-powerful God could not control the bad caused by his system, hard though he tried. 4) He is not all-good.

dhw: My own suggestion, for what it's worth, is that (assuming he exists, of course) the all-powerful God deliberately designed a system whereby at all levels - ranging from their responses to changing conditions (resulting in evolution) to human free will - all life forms had the ability to work out their own destiny. (But he could dabble if he wished.) The outcome is the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution, and many of those features of life which we consider to be bad and which have arisen inevitably from the self-interest which governs the fight for survival. Like you some of the time - when you are not harping on about his good intentions - I would not touch on whether he himself is what we would call "good".

DAVID: A good summary of your views.

dhw: Thank you. I take it that you cannot find any fault with them, and you accept my summary of your own views. We can probably draw a line under the topic now, though 3) and 4) may well crop up again in future discussions,

Yes

dhw: My own suggestion, for what it's worth, is that (assuming he exists, of course) the all-powerful God deliberately designed a system whereby at all levels - ranging from their responses to changing conditions (resulting in evolution) to human free will - all life forms had the ability to work out their own destiny. (But he could dabble if he wished.) The outcome is the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution, and many of those features of life which we consider to be bad and which have arisen inevitably from the self-interest which governs the fight for survival. Like you some of the time - when you are not harping on about his good intentions - I would not touch on whether he himself is what we would call "good".

DAVID: A good summary of your views.

Thank you. I take it that you cannot find any fault with them, and you accept my summary of your own views. We can probably draw a line under the topic now, though 3) and 4) may well crop up again in future discussions,

Under “sensing autonomic activity”

DAVID: But all the errors are molecular!!! I fully believe God produced the only system that can work and produce life. Bad actors in bacteria and viruses are 'bad' when acting in the wrong places, part of the freedom of action they have.

dhw: Why must I repeat the fact that the problem of theodicy is not confined to molecules, or even to bad viruses and bacteria? Some of us regard natural disasters as “bad”, animals killing others for food, the cut-throat struggle for survival, self-interest culminating perhaps in all the “bad” we humans get up to - theft, murder, rape, war… How could a first-cause, all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God have created a system that he knew would lead to all of this "bad"?

DAVID: 'Bad' is a human interpretation of facts. Animals have to kill each other to eat. Animals like humans have free will. God did not want automatons. Without earthquakes no continental subduction, no life. You don't recognize the trade outs to have Earth like it is. Lightning kills but those storms produce needed rain. I could go on. Humans can handle these challenges and that is enough. How do you know God is all-good? I don't.

dhw: With your various posts, you have now offered various possible answers to the problem of theodicy, which asks why an all-good, all-powerful God created a world full of what we call bad. Here are your answers: 1) We should focus on the good and not the bad. 2) What we call “bad” might not be bad. 3) The all-powerful God could not control the bad caused by his system, hard though he tried. 4) He is not all-good.

My own suggestion, for what it's worth, is that (assuming he exists, of course) the all-powerful God deliberately designed a system whereby at all levels - ranging from their responses to changing conditions (resulting in evolution) to human free will - all life forms had the ability to work out their own destiny. (But he could dabble if he wished.) The outcome is the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution, and many of those features of life which we consider to be bad and which have arisen inevitably from the self-interest which governs the fight for survival. Like you some of the time - when you are not harping on about his good intentions - I would not touch on whether he himself is what we would call "good".

A good summary of your views.

DAVID: But all the errors are molecular!!! I fully believe God produced the only system that can work and produce life. Bad actors in bacteria and viruses are 'bad' when acting in the wrong places, part of the freedom of action they have.

dhw: Why must I repeat the fact that the problem of theodicy is not confined to molecules, or even to bad viruses and bacteria? Some of us regard natural disasters as “bad”, animals killing others for food, the cut-throat struggle for survival, self-interest culminating perhaps in all the “bad” we humans get up to - theft, murder, rape, war… How could a first-cause, all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God have created a system that he knew would lead to all of this "bad"?

DAVID: 'Bad' is a human interpretation of facts. Animals have to kill each other to eat. Animals like humans have free will. God did not want automatons. Without earthquakes no continental subduction, no life. You don't recognize the trade outs to have Earth like it is. Lightning kills but those storms produce needed rain. I could go on. Humans can handle these challenges and that is enough. How do you know God is all-good? I don't.

With your various posts, you have now offered various possible answers to the problem of theodicy, which asks why an all-good, all-powerful God created a world full of what we call bad. Here are your answers: 1) We should focus on the good and not the bad. 2) What we call “bad” might not be bad. 3) The all-powerful God could not control the bad caused by his system, hard though he tried. 4) He is not all-good.

My own suggestion, for what it's worth, is that (assuming he exists, of course) the all-powerful God deliberately designed a system whereby at all levels - ranging from their responses to changing conditions (resulting in evolution) to human free will - all life forms had the ability to work out their own destiny. (But he could dabble if he wished.) The outcome is the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution, and many of those features of life which we consider to be bad and which have arisen inevitably from the self-interest which governs the fight for survival. Like you some of the time - when you are not harping on about his good intentions - I would not touch on whether he himself is what we would call "good".

Under “sensing autonomic activity”
dhw: You keep confining the discussion to molecules, and you keep insisting that your all-powerful God was forced to create an imperfect system because of the conditions which he himself created. The “bad” of life is not confined to free-floating molecules! In the rest of this post, you continue to ignore the overall problem of the “bad”, and cling to your molecules:

DAVID: But all the errors are molecular!!! I fully believe God produced the only system that can work and produce life. Bad actors in bacteria and viruses are 'bad' when acting in the wrong places, part of the freedom of action they have.

dhw: Why must I repeat the fact that the problem of theodicy is not confined to molecules, or even to bad viruses and bacteria? Some of us regard natural disasters as “bad”, animals killing others for food, the cut-throat struggle for survival, self-interest culminating perhaps in all the “bad” we humans get up to - theft, murder, rape, war… How could a first-cause, all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God have created a system that he knew would lead to all of this "bad"?

'Bad' is a human interpretation of facts. Animals have to kill each other to eat. Animals like humans have free will. God did not want automatons. Without earthquakes no continental subduction, no life. You don't recognize the trade outs to have Earth like it is. Lightning kills but those storms produce needed rain. I could go on. Humans can handle these challenges and that is enough. How do you know God is all-good? I don't.

DAVID: But all the errors are molecular!!! I fully believe God produced the only system that can work and produce life. Bad actors in bacteria and viruses are 'bad' when acting in the wrong places, part of the freedom of action they have.

Why must I repeat the fact that the problem of theodicy is not confined to molecules, or even to bad viruses and bacteria? Some of us regard natural disasters as “bad”, animals killing others for food, the cut-throat struggle for survival, self-interest culminating perhaps in all the “bad” we humans get up to - theft, murder, rape, war… How could a first-cause, all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God have created a system that he knew would lead to all of this "bad"?

DAVID: But all eventualities are not correct. I have chosen what I think is correct, considering God as creator, and you haven't.

dhw: Of course they aren’t all correct, but they all consider God as creator. The difference between my theories and your theory is that you agree mine all fit in logically with life’s history, whereas you can’t find any logical explanation for yours.

As always: Believing God exists, He created evolution. Since based on belief, what is illogical? Your answer has to be belief in God is illogical.

Under “sensing autonomic activity”

DAVID: My position differs. The ONLY system that could/would work allows for molecular errors. A rigid highly controlled system would be too sluggish to work. The current system allows free-floating molecules to act instantly in nanoseconds with no time for review and editing.

dhw: You keep confining the discussion to molecules, and you keep insisting that your all-powerful God was forced to create an imperfect system because of the conditions which he himself created. The “bad” of life is not confined to free-floating molecules! In the rest of this post, you continue to ignore the overall problem of the “bad”, and cling to your molecules:

But all the errors are molecular!!! I fully believe God produced the only system that can work and produce life. Bad actors in bacteria and viruses are 'bad' when acting in the wrong places, part of the freedom of action they have.

DAVID: God may simply create without a thought of love or caring. He may have added editing to stop molecular mistakes simply out of despair that the system could not be as perfect as He wished.

dhw: A wonderfully humanized God despairs at having been forced to create an imperfect system against his own wishes. But I accept that it is a possible solution to the theodicy problem: he is all-good but not all-powerful and was forced to create “bad” by circumstances beyond his own control.

God did not impose rigid controls on all organisms or their underlying molecular actions, because life cannot appear/emerge from that rigidity

DAVID: But all eventualities are not correct. I have chosen what I think is correct, considering God as creator, and you haven't.

Of course they aren’t all correct, but they all consider God as creator. The difference between my theories and your theory is that you agree mine all fit in logically with life’s history, whereas you can’t find any logical explanation for yours.

Under “sensing autonomic activity”
DAVID:: Here again we note the good body responses can make mistakes, despite the fact that the protective processes must necessarily be present to edit responses within proper bounds. A system fault when running on its own is not God's fault. dhw would like Him to supervise every biochemical reaction on Earth! (dhw’s bold)

dhw: Congratulations, you have understood a possible explanation of theodicy. By creating systems that run on their own and make errors on their own, your all-powerful God cannot be held responsible for the bad results. Hence my proposal: he did not wish to supervise, control, preprogramme or dabble every reaction of cells, of animals, of humans, or of any life forms; and so he created the system he WANTED to create, not the system he was forced to create because of the conditions he had created.

DAVID: My position differs. The ONLY system that could/would work allows for molecular errors. A rigid highly controlled system would be too sluggish to work. The current system allows free-floating molecules to act instantly in nanoseconds with no time for review and editing.

You keep confining the discussion to molecules, and you keep insisting that your all-powerful God was forced to create an imperfect system because of the conditions which he himself created. The “bad” of life is not confined to free-floating molecules! In the rest of this post, you continue to ignore the overall problem of the “bad”, and cling to your molecules:

DAVID: God may simply create without a thought of love or caring. He may have added editing to stop molecular mistakes simply out of despair that the system could not as perfect as He wished.

A wonderfully humanized God despairs at having been forced to create an imperfect system against his own wishes. But I accept that it is a possible solution to the theodicy problem: he is all-good but not all-powerful and was forced to create “bad” by circumstances beyond his own control.

dhw: I am proposing that your God (if he exists) deliberately designed the whole system, from single cells all the way to human free will, to allow all organisms the freedom to do their own thinking, designing, behaving. Hence the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings in the vast bush of life.

DAVID: That is a twist on panpsychism, but in my view humans were His desired endpoint of evolution, so your kind of God hopes for humans appearing by chance.

dhw: He can always dabble if he wishes to. But my various theories cover all eventualities. If humans were his desired goal or endpoint, I offer experimentation to explain all the other life forms, or new ideas as your God goes along. The free-for-all is one of several logical explanations I offer.

But all eventualities are not correct. I have chosen what I think is correct, considering God as creator, and you haven't.

Under “sensing autonomic activity”
DAVID:: Here again we note the good body responses can make mistakes, despite the fact that the protective processes must necessarily be present to edit responses within proper bounds. A system fault when running on its own is not God's fault. dhw would like Him to supervise every biochemical reaction on Earth! (dhw’s bold)

dhw: Congratulations, you have understood a possible explanation of theodicy. By creating systems that run on their own and make errors on their own, your all-powerful God cannot be held responsible for the bad results. Hence my proposal: he did not wish to supervise, control, preprogramme or dabble every reaction of cells, of animals, of humans, or of any life forms; and so he created the system he WANTED to create, not the system he was forced to create because of the conditions he had created.

My position differs. The ONLY system that could/would work allows for molecular errors. A rigid highly controlled system would be too sluggish to work. The current system allows free-floating molecules to act instantly in nanoseconds with no time for review and editing.

dhw: You were the one who raised the problem of theodicy, which is the problem of how an all-good and all-powerful God can produce bad, not the problem of whether we believe in God! Now you’re pretending that I’m claiming God is all-good! If you and Adler think your God may be partly good and partly bad, that’s up to you. A partly nasty God is one solution to the problem of theodicy.

DAVID: Exactly!! God may simply create without a thought of love or caring. He may have added editing to stop molecular mistakes simply out of despair that the system could not as perfect as He wished.

dhw: So now you have your all-powerful, all-knowing, possibly uncaring God in despair at being unable to create what he wishes to create. Your God gets more human and less God-like by the paragraph. But it’s a possible solution to the theodicy problem. While I have him creating what he wanted to create, you still have him trying to make up for his inability to do what he wants to do, despite his being all-powerful and all-knowing.

Editing systems are proof God recognized the need for error-correction. From above: "The ONLY system that could/would work allows for molecular errors. A rigid highly controlled system would be too sluggish to work. The current system allows free-floating molecules to act instantly in nanoseconds with no time for review and editing."

DAVID: Fallible molecules can't design new species. Molecular mistakes make mutations, most of which are fully demonstrated as dangerous.

dhw: You have missed the point (now bolded): I am proposing that your God (if he exists) deliberately designed the whole system, from single cells all the way to human free will, to allow all organisms the freedom to do their own thinking, designing, behaving. Hence the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings in the vast bush of life.

DAVID: That is a twist on panpsychism, but in my view humans were His desired endpoint of evolution, so your kind of God hopes for humans appearing by chance.

He can always dabble if he wishes to. But my various theories cover all eventualities. If humans were his desired goal or endpoint, I offer experimentation to explain all the other life forms, or new ideas as your God goes along. The free-for-all is one of several logical explanations I offer.

Under “sensing autonomic activity”
DAVID:: Here again we note the good body responses can make mistakes, despite the fact that the protective processes must necessarily be present to edit responses within proper bounds. A system fault when running on its own is not God's fault. dhw would like Him to supervise every biochemical reaction on Earth! (dhw’s bold)

Congratulations, you have understood a possible explanation of theodicy. By creating systems that run on their own and make errors on their own, your all-powerful God cannot be held responsible for the bad results. Hence my proposal: he did not wish to supervise, control, preprogramme or dabble every reaction of cells, of animals, of humans, or of any life forms; and so he created the system he WANTED to create, not the system he was forced to create because of the conditions he had created.

dhw: You simply refuse to stick to the subject! Theodicy asks why there is bad in the world if the God who created it is all-good. And you keep answering: ignore the bad and focus on the good. That is not an answer!

DAVID: You have inserted, once again, the all-good God. I guess back to your childhood religious teaching. I don't know if He is all good, loves us, etc. Adler and I say 50/50. And yet Adler and I believe in Him!

dhw: You were the one who raised the problem of theodicy, which is the problem of how an all-good and all-powerful God can produce bad, not the problem of whether we believe in God! Now you’re pretending that I’m claiming God is all-good! If you and Adler think your God may be partly good and partly bad, that’s up to you. A partly nasty God is one solution to the problem of theodicy.

DAVID: Exactly!! God may simply create without a thought of love or caring. He may have added editing to stop molecular mistakes simply out of despair that the system could not as perfect as He wished.

So now you have your all-powerful, all-knowing, possibly uncaring God in despair at being unable to create what he wishes to create. Your God gets more human and less God-like by the paragraph. But it’s a possible solution to the theodicy problem. While I have him creating what he wanted to create, you still have him trying to make up for his inability to do what he wants to do, despite his being all-powerful and all-knowing.

dhw: […] maybe, instead of being forced by circumstances (which he himself had created) into designing fallible molecules which he could not always control, hard though he tried, he deliberately built in a degree of freedom as part of an overall scheme to give all life’s components the flexibility to design the countless life forms which make up the history of evolution.

DAVID: Fallible molecules can't design new species. Molecular mistakes make mutations, most of which are fully demonstrated as dangerous.

dhw: You have missed the point (now bolded): I am proposing that your God (if he exists) deliberately designed the whole system, from single cells all the way to human free will, to allow all organisms the freedom to do their own thinking, designing, behaving. Hence the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings in the vast bush of life.

That is a twist on panpsychism, but in my view humans were His desired endpoint of evolution, so your kind of God hopes for humans appearing by chance.

dhw: You simply refuse to stick to the subject! Theodicy asks why there is bad in the world if the God who created it is all-good. And you keep answering: ignore the bad and focus on the good. That is not an answer!

DAVID: You have inserted, once again, the all-good God. I guess back to your childhood religious teaching. I don't know if He is all good, loves us, etc. Adler and I say 50/50. And yet Adler and I believe in Him!

dhw: You were the one who raised the problem of theodicy, which is the problem of how an all-good and all-powerful God can produce bad, not the problem of whether we believe in God! Now you’re pretending that I’m claiming God is all-good! If you and Adler think your God may be partly good and partly bad, that’s up to you. A partly nasty God is one solution to the problem of theodicy.

Exactly!! God may simply create without a thought of love or caring. He may have added editing to stop molecular mistakes simply out of despair that the system could not as perfect as He wished

DAVID: Fallible humans are exactly equal to fallible molecules in my example. My position is God could not choose any other system, since no other working system can be designed.

dhw: […] maybe, instead of being forced by circumstances (which he himself had created) into designing fallible molecules which he could not always control, hard though he tried, he deliberately built in a degree of freedom as part of an overall scheme to give all life’s components the flexibility to design the countless life forms which make up the history of evolution.

DAVID: Fallible molecules can't design new species. Molecular mistakes make mutations, most of which are fully demonstrated as dangerous.

You have missed the point (now bolded): I am proposing that your God (if he exists) deliberately designed the whole system, from single cells all the way to human free will,to allow all organisms the freedom to do their own thinking, designing, behaving. Hence the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings in the vast bush of life.

dhw: […] the bad in the world is not confined to errors in the system or even to bad bacteria and viruses. Apart from natural disasters which cause untold destruction, suffering and death, we have the innate selfishness which lies at the very heart of much of the world’s evil […] Why would a kindly, all-good God devise a system which engenders such horrors? THAT is the problem of theodicy which you want us to ignore.

DAVID: Poor bad God. [..] In our First World countries life expectancy is in the high 70's. I see mostly good while you concentrate on mostly bad.

dhw: You simply refuse to stick to the subject! Theodicy asks why there is bad in the world if the God who created it is all-good. And you keep answering: ignore the bad and focus on the good. That is not an answer!

DAVID: You have inserted, once again, the all-good God. I guess back to your childhood religious teaching. I don't know if He is all good, loves us, etc. Adler and I say 50/50. And yet Adler and I believe in Him!

You were the one who raised the problem of theodicy, which is the problem of how an all-good and all-powerful God can produce bad, not the problem of whether we believe in God! Now you’re pretending that I’m claiming God is all-good! If you and Adler think your God may be partly good and partly bad, that’s up to you. A partly nasty God is one solution to the problem of theodicy.

dhw: Your conclusion is the same as ever: An all-powerful, all-knowing God “recognized errors could occur, in the only design that would produce life.” Still limited in his power, forced by the conditions he created to design a system containing errors he wished didn’t happen, tried to correct and sometimes failed, but luckily he gave us the brains to do what he couldn’t do.

DAVID: Fallible humans are exactly equal to fallible molecules in my example. My position is God could not choose any other system, since no other working system can be designed.

dhw: You have generously hinted at another explanation at the very end of this thread: “As for our bad tendencies, we have free will fully out of God’s control.” I presume that your all-powerful, all-knowing God deliberately gave us this free will, deliberately sacrificing control. And so maybe, just maybe, instead of being forced by circumstances (which he himself had created) into designing fallible molecules which he could not always control, hard though he tried, he deliberately built in a degree of freedom as part of an overall scheme to give all life’s components the flexibility to design the countless life forms which make up the history of evolution.

Fallible molecules can't design new species. Molecular mistakes make mutations, most of which are fully demonstrated as dangerous

DAVID: I asked for a bad percentage in your eyes. No answer. Is it too small for debate?

dhw: It is irrelevant, and in any case you are picking on just one example of the bad. I pointed out to you that according to some statisticians, 42% of Americans will suffer from cancer. You said it was 20%. If you want figures, I’d say that even 20% was large enough for debate. But the bad in the world is not confined to errors in the system or even to bad bacteria and viruses. Apart from natural disasters which cause untold destruction, suffering and death, we have the innate selfishness which lies at the very heart of much of the world’s evil, and theoretically you can trace this back to the very beginnings of evolution: survival is the key, and although there is goody-goody cooperation, there is also baddy-baddy egotism symbolized, for example, by the necessity for some animals to kill and eat others in order to survive. Why would a kindly, all-good God devise a system which engenders such horrors? THAT is the problem of theodicy which you want us to ignore.

DAVID: Poor bad God. Unfortunately the only living system that works requires a constant input of energy. Do you skip meals? In our First World countries life expectancy is in the high 70's. I see mostly good while you concentrate on mostly bad. As for our bad tendencies, we have free will fully out of God's control.

dhw: You simply refuse to stick to the subject! Theodicy asks why there is bad in the world if the God who created it is all-good. And you keep answering: ignore the bad and focus on the good. That is not an answer!

You have inserted, once again, the all-good God. I guess back to your childhood religious teaching. I don't know if He is all good, loves us, etc. Adler and I say 50/50. And yet Adler and I believe in Him!

DAVID: Fallible humans are exactly equal to fallible molecules in my example. My position is God could not choose any other system, since no other working system can be designed.

You have generously hinted at another explanation at the very end of this thread: “As for our bad tendencies, we have free will fully out of God’s control.” I presume that your all-powerful, all-knowing God deliberately gave us this free will, deliberately sacrificing control. And so maybe, just maybe, instead of being forced by circumstances (which he himself had created) into designing fallible molecules which he could not always control, hard though he tried, he deliberately built in a degree of freedom as part of an overall scheme to give all life’s components the flexibility to design the countless life forms which make up the history of evolution.

DAVID: I asked for a bad percentage in your eyes. No answer. Is it too small for debate?

dhw: It is irrelevant, and in any case you are picking on just one example of the bad. I pointed out to you that according to some statisticians, 42% of Americans will suffer from cancer. You said it was 20%. If you want figures, I’d say that even 20% was large enough for debate. But the bad in the world is not confined to errors in the system or even to bad bacteria and viruses. Apart from natural disasters which cause untold destruction, suffering and death, we have the innate selfishness which lies at the very heart of much of the world’s evil, and theoretically you can trace this back to the very beginnings of evolution: survival is the key, and although there is goody-goody cooperation, there is also baddy-baddy egotism symbolized, for example, by the necessity for some animals to kill and eat others in order to survive. Why would a kindly, all-good God devise a system which engenders such horrors? THAT is the problem of theodicy which you want us to ignore.

DAVID: Poor bad God. Unfortunately the only living system that works requires a constant input of energy. Do you skip meals? In our First World countries life expectancy is in the high 70's. I see mostly good while you concentrate on mostly bad. As for our bad tendencies, we have free will fully out of God's control.

You simply refuse to stick to the subject! Theodicy asks why there is bad in the world if the God who created it is all-good. And you keep answering: ignore the bad and focus on the good. That is not an answer!

DAVID: Not helpless: He invented life after He invented our universe. Lets imagine a human example of a perfectly designed process.

dhw: The example you gave was a system invented by fallible humans, depending on fallible humans. Your conclusion is the same as ever: An all-powerful, all-knowing God “recognized errors could occur, in the only design that would produce life.” Still limited in his power, forced by the conditions he created to design a system containing errors he wished didn’t happen, tried to correct and sometimes failed, but luckily he gave us the brains to do what he couldn’t do.

Fallible humans are exactly equal to fallible molecules in my example. My position is God could not choose any other system, since no other working system can be designed.

The good viruses do
DAVID: I never ignored the bad. I'm trying to establish the degree of bad with you. How huge is it or how small as a percentage of all of us? US male life expectancy is about 78 years. Is that good or bad? 10,000 years ago it was thought to have been in the forties. Much longer now despite all God's terrible errors? Why? How?

dhw: So instead of discussing the problem of theodicy (i.e. why an all-good God would produce bad things) you want to discuss the amount of good versus bad. Not only that, but we should focus on all the wonderful things humans have done in order to increase our resistance to the errors your omnipotent, omniscient God could not prevent. Well done us, for increasing our life expectancy!

DAVID: I asked for a bad percentage in your eyes. No answer. Is it too small for debate?

dhw: It is irrelevant, and in any case you are picking on just one example of the bad. I pointed out to you that according to some statisticians, 42% of Americans will suffer from cancer. You said it was 20%. If you want figures, I’d say that even 20% was large enough for debate. But the bad in the world is not confined to errors in the system or even to bad bacteria and viruses. Apart from natural disasters which cause untold destruction, suffering and death, we have the innate selfishness which lies at the very heart of much of the world’s evil, and theoretically you can trace this back to the very beginnings of evolution: survival is the key, and although there is goody-goody cooperation, there is also baddy-baddy egotism symbolized, for example, by the necessity for some animals to kill and eat others in order to survive. Why would a kindly, all-good God devise a system which engenders such horrors? THAT is the problem of theodicy which you want us to ignore.

Poor bad God. Unfortunately the only living system that works requires a constant input of energy. Do you skip meals? In our First World countries life expectancy is in the high 70's. I see mostly good while you concentrate on mostly bad. As for our bad tendencies, we have free will fully out of God's control.

dhw: He has total power over everything, and he knows everything, but He couldn’t design an error-free system, and he didn’t know how to correct some of the errors it produced, although amazingly he designed the brains that enable us to correct some of the errors he couldn’t correct. And he did not design this system because he WANTED it as it is, but because despite his omnipotence and omniscience, and his wishing he could do it differently, the conditions he created gave him no choice. Poor, helpless, all-powerful, all-knowing God.

DAVID: Not helpless: He invented life after He invented our universe. Lets imagine a human example of a perfectly designed process.

The example you gave was a system invented by fallible humans, depending on fallible humans. Your conclusion is the same as ever: An all-powerful, all-knowing God “recognized errors could occur, in the only design that would produce life.” Still limited in his power, forced by the conditions he created to design a system containing errors he wished didn’t happen, tried to correct and sometimes failed, but luckily he gave us the brains to do what he couldn’t do.

The good viruses do
DAVID: I never ignored the bad. I'm trying to establish the degree of bad with you. How huge is it or how small as a percentage of all of us? US male life expectancy is about 78 years. Is that good or bad? 10,000 years ago it was thought to have been in the forties. Much longer now despite all God's terrible errors? Why? How?

dhw: So instead of discussing the problem of theodicy (i.e. why an all-good God would produce bad things) you want to discuss the amount of good versus bad. Not only that, but we should focus on all the wonderful things humans have done in order to increase our resistance to the errors your omnipotent, omniscient God could not prevent. Well done us, for increasing our life expectancy!

DAVID: I asked for a bad percentage in your eyes. No answer. Is it too small for debate?

It is irrelevant, and in any case you are picking on just one example of the bad. I pointed out to you that according to some statisticians, 42% of Americans will suffer from cancer. You said it was 20%. If you want figures, I’d say that even 20% was large enough for debate. But the bad in the world is not confined to errors in the system or even to bad bacteria and viruses. Apart from natural disasters which cause untold destruction, suffering and death, we have the innate selfishness which lies at the very heart of much of the world’s evil, and theoretically you can trace this back to the very beginnings of evolution: survival is the key, and although there is goody-goody cooperation, there is also baddy-baddy egotism symbolized, for example, by the necessity for some animals to kill and eat others in order to survive. Why would a kindly, all-good God devise a system which engenders such horrors? THAT is the problem of theodicy which you want us to ignore.

dhw: I’m amazed at your knowledge of your all-powerful God’s limitations, and your fixed belief that he could not possibly have deliberately designed the existing system because that was what he WANTED to design rather than what he was forced to design by the conditions he himself had created.

DAVID: I do not view God as limited as I accept our current biochemical system of life as the only one that will work. Termed another way, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and knowing the results in advance set up the current systems of edits to prevent as many errors as He could.

dhw: He has total power over everything, and he knows everything, but He couldn’t design an error-free system, and he didn’t know how to correct some of the errors it produced, although amazingly he designed the brains that enable us to correct some of the errors he couldn’t correct. And he did not design this system because he WANTED it as it is, but because despite his omnipotence and omniscience, and his wishing he could do it differently, the conditions he created gave him no choice. Poor, helpless, all-powerful, all-knowing God.

Not helpless: He invented life after He invented our universe. Lets imagine a human example of a perfectly designed process. It relies upon a thousand workers doing their job and has a few foremen watching as guiders producing perfect products. If individual workmen make unnoticed mistakes, the product is bad. That is how I view the living process God produced. It relies on free-floating molecules to join properly, to fold properly under changing stimuli. They are the workman in the human analogy and foremen the editing systems. The designer recognized errors could occur, in the only design that would produce life.

The good viruses do

dhw: You continue to ignore the fact that our subject is theodicy, which means an attempt to explain why an all-good God would produce bad. The problem is not solved by focusing on the good and ignoring the bad.

DAVID: I never ignored the bad. I'm trying to establish the degree of bad with you. How huge is it or how small as a percentage of all of us? US male life expectancy is about 78 years. Is that good or bad? 10,000 years ago it was thought to have been in the forties. Much longer now despite all God's terrible errors? Why? How?

dhw: So instead of discussing the problem of theodicy (i.e. why an all-good God would produce bad things) you want to discuss the amount of good versus bad. Not only that, but we should focus on all the wonderful things humans have done in order to increase our resistance to the errors your omnipotent, omniscient God could not prevent. Well done us, for increasing our life expectancy!

I asked for a bad percentage in your eyes. No answer. Is it too small for debate?