Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> > > [b]Contradictions[/b]
> > > 
> > > dhw: [i]You keep yammering on about “need”. You agree that he not only creates but is interested in his creations. Why do you think it is illogical for a God to enjoy creating and be interested in what he creates, rather than to create zombie-like without any feelings at all about what he is doing?[/i]
> > > 
> > > DAVID: [i]We do not know how God feels about Himself, and He likely has no feelings. Back to Adler's 50/50.[/i]
> > > 
> > > dhw: Adler’s 50/50 does not mean he likely has no feelings; it means he may or may not have them. And in any case you’ve told us this applied only to whether your God cares for us. According to you, he is “benevolent”, which = 100% he cares for us. Now please explain why it is illogical to assume that if God is interested in his creations (as you say he is), he might have created them because he wanted to create something that would interest him, and if he may like us to worship him (as you say he may), he might have created us because he wanted us to worship him. And do you agree that these possible motives are not selfless?
>  
>  Stop assuming my guesses about God are 100% fact or true as you constantly proclaim. God is selfless and whether He wishes these relationships or not is unknown. They remain as human wishes.
> > > 
> > > [b]99.9% v 0.1%[/b]
> > > 
> > > DAVID: [i]Stop slicing evolution into separate [b]stages[/b]: the present survivors came from the extinct past [b]stages[/b].[/i] (dhw's bold)
> > > 
> > > dhw: [i]I must stop slicing evolution into[b] stages[/b], but the present survivors came from past [b]stages[/b], and you never contradict yourself! Once more: each past stage rendered 99.9% extinct and only 0.1% survived. The 0.1% then produced the new species until the next “stage”, when the process was repeated. At every stage, the new species were produced by the surviving 0.1% and not by the 99.9% that had not survived. Once a species is extinct, it cannot produce anything! You have agreed that we and our food are descended from the 0.1% survivors, not from the 99.9% that did not survive, so why do you find your own agreement insane?[/i]
> > > 
> > > DAVID: [i]You described perfectly how evolution works. It is a continuum. I still contend the 0.1% existent today all came from the 99.9% now extinct as you describe.[/i]
> > > 
> > > dhw: What I have described “perfectly” is the exact opposite of 0.1% being descended from the 99.9% extinct, 
>  
> Did the 99.9% produce the 0.1% or not? If not what produced the 0.1%?
> > 
> > > [b]The free-for-all theory[/b]
> > > 
> > > DAVID: [i]Now sneaking in Shapiro's theory of cell directed evolution. I'll stick with God as designer.[/i]
> > > 
> > > dhw: […]  [i]if God exists, he would have designed the mechanisms that created the free-for-all.[/i]
> > > 
> > > DAVID: [i]Of course.[/i]
> > > 
> > > dhw: [i]So you can now have a designer God whose use of evolution makes sense.[/i]
> > > 
> > > DAVID: [i]In your eyes.[/i]
> > > 
> > > dhw: In your eyes, your perfect God’s use of evolution is imperfect, messy and inefficient, and despite his omnipotence he is incapable of inventing a system of life without mistakes which he tries in vain to correct, but he hopes that we will help him out. And for good measure, he also designed bugs that can outsmart him. Does all this make sense?
>  
> Certainly does in a working system that allowed freedom as action as it must.
> > > 
> > > [b]Theodicy: a philosopher leaps[/b]
> > 
> > > dhw: [i]Your own comment is a contradiction in itself: if God created the universe but was limited in his options, then clearly he cannot be all-powerful.[/i]
> > > 
> > > DAVID: [i]You still miss the point: how life works requires a system that will work. Only the current form is it. God was not limited within Himself, but in rigid requirements for a result.[/i]
> > > 
> > > dhw: So your omnipotent God was incapable of designing a Garden of Eden, and was incapable of correcting the mistakes in his system (and relied on us to help him), but he has no limitations.
> 
>   Understand if a system won't work it won't work no matter how omnificent or all-powerful one is. We are given what works.