Why is god so inefficient at growing babies?

Akrasia

Up to 80% of all naturally conceived embryos fail to develop due to natural conditions. *figure refers to fertilised ova that remained inn the womb for at least 7 days and does not count official miscarriages.

The catholic church teach vehemently that human life begins at the precise moment of conception.
What happens to all these 'unique individual people'? What happens to their souls?
Is heaven mostly crammed with the souls of non viable embryos?

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34948.html

robindch

Akrasia wrote: »

Up to 80% of all naturally conceived embryos fail to develop due to natural conditions. *figure refers to fertilised ova that remained inn the womb for at least 7 days and does not count official miscarriages.

The exact figure is open to debate, but the general problem isn't. Not the first time it's come up either (see here) -- I'm interested to see how this topic is viewed these days.

Zachary

<snip>

JoeB-

Akrasia wrote: »

Is heaven mostly crammed with the souls of non viable embryos?

Well, it wouldn't be heaven would it?

Unborn babies, miscarried babies etc have to be punished for a crime...

Whether the crime is original sin perpetrated by someone else entirely, or whether the crime is the failure of the parents to baptise the children, or whether the crime is the failure of the Catholic Church (or whatever is the true religion) to provide a ceremony which provides for the eternal salvation of the soul it doesn't really matter.. the baby won't be experiencing the full glory of heaven and god that's for sure.

An individual has to embrace Jesus / God and believe entirely (without any evidence (faith) the whole story and magical elements and be 'lucky' enough to be indoctrinated into the one true religion to have a chance... the odds are against everybody really.

eoin5

I find it pretty interesting as well that an embryo can split and form and re-merge for a few days after conception. I'm sure theres plenty of ways to rationalise that soulwise but it certainly weakens the argument for soul(s) at conception.

PDN

JoeBallantine wrote: »

Well, it wouldn't be heaven would it?

Unborn babies, miscarried babies etc have to be punished for a crime...

Whether the crime is original sin perpetrated by someone else entirely, or whether the crime is the failure of the parents to baptise the children, or whether the crime is the failure of the Catholic Church (or whatever is the true religion) to provide a ceremony which provides for the eternal salvation of the soul it doesn't really matter.. the baby won't be experiencing the full glory of heaven and god that's for sure.

An individual has to embrace Jesus / God and believe entirely (without any evidence (faith) the whole story and magical elements and be 'lucky' enough to be indoctrinated into the one true religion to have a chance... the odds are against everybody really.

Speaking as a non-Catholic Christian, babies would not have to be punished for any crime at all since they've done anything wrong.

Your definition of faith is at fault as well. Faith does not mean to believe without any evidence.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Your definition of faith is at fault as well. Faith does not mean to believe without any evidence.

Does it not? The Oxford Concise English Dictionary defines faith as "strong belief in a religion based on spiritual conviction rather than proof."

mickoneill30

PDN wrote: »

Speaking as a non-Catholic Christian, babies would not have to be punished for any crime at all since they've done anything wrong.

Original sin is a Christian concept (is that the right word) and not just Catholic. It used to mean damnation, then it meant Limbo. But last year Limbo was abolished (in the Catholic Church anyway) and now unbaptised children go to heaven. Baptism is still needed for salvation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/originalsin_6.shtml

Pompey Magnus

As far as I am aware the Catholic Church's stance is that they have hope that unbaptised babies go to Heaven, they can never make that dogma as it contradicts the Augustine derived dogma that they go to Hell.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Faith does not mean to believe without any evidence.

Well, dictionary definitions aside, you seem to be out of step with Jesus also, since he seems to relish evidence-free belief. In John 20:29, he's quoted as saying:

John 20:29 wrote:

Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Speaking as a non-Catholic Christian, babies would not have to be punished for any crime at all since they've done anything wrong.

So given that 80% of all human soles go straight to heaven after only a few days on Earth, one has to ask what did the rest of us 20% did to end up here suffering through life, and why is this factoid not mentioned anywhere in the Bible?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

So given that 80% of all human soles go straight to heaven after only a few days on Earth, one has to ask what did the rest of us 20% did to end up here suffering through life, and why is this factoid not mentioned anywhere in the Bible?

First off you are operating on the assumption that the Catholic Church is correct in asserting that life begins at conception. So obviously your 'factoid' is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible because it is not based on the Bible.

Also, I find your question interesting as it is an inversion of the usual atheist attack on Christianity. Usually the complaint is why do so many people suffer here on earth, or why are so many people compelled to hell ("What about all the people who never heard of Jesus? Blah Blah Blah). You appear to want to argue about why so few (comparatively speaking) suffer on earth or go to Hell. I guess this proves Wiki will argue about anything. :pac::pac::pac::pac:

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Does it not? The Oxford Concise English Dictionary defines faith as "strong belief in a religion based on spiritual conviction rather than proof."

If you are unable to tell the difference between proof and evidence then I imagine that science classes at school must have been trying for you.

Maybe this helps explain why, in another thread, you appear to think it is an established fact that time didn't exist before the Big Bang.

PDN

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Original sin is a Christian concept (is that the right word) and not just Catholic. It used to mean damnation, then it meant Limbo. But last year Limbo was abolished (in the Catholic Church anyway) and now unbaptised children go to heaven. Baptism is still needed for salvation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/originalsin_6.shtml

Original sin is indeed a Christian concept, and one that I believe in. But that does not mean that people will be punished for sins that they have never committed. Original sin means that every human being has a strong tendency, or inherent bias, towards sin, but the Bible plainly states that a son will not be punished for the sins of his father.

"Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

"But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? (Ezekiel 18:19-23)

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Well, dictionary definitions aside, you seem to be out of step with Jesus also, since he seems to relish evidence-free belief. In John 20:29, he's quoted as saying:

Ah, the joys of ripping verses out of context to reach a desired conclusion.

Of course, when you look at the context, you realise that Thomas had already seen an abundance of evidence that should have caused him to believe that Jesus was to be trusted when He predicted His own Resurrection from the dead.

Let's see, what evidence had Thomas seen? The blind and crippled healed, the dead raised, water turned to wine, a fig tree withered, walking on water, feeding 5000 people with a few loaves and fishes, voices from heaven, the sun blotted out of the sky in the middle of the afternoon, coins retrieved from a fish's mouth just in time to pay the tax bill, etc.

In this context it is clear that Jesus is, in effect saying to Thomas, "After all the evidence you have seen of My power, and the accuracy of everything I have said, you should have believed Me when I told you repeatedly that I would rise from the dead. Blessed are those who believe on the basis of such evidence instead of demanding absolute proof."

Christianity is about putting our faith in Christ based on the evidence available to us. However, the evidence we have does not constitute absolute proof.

Wikipedia actually gets it right for once in defining faith thus:

wikipedia wrote:

To trust:

* To commit oneself to act based on self experience to warrant belief, but without absolute proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

If you are unable to tell the difference between proof and evidence then I imagine that science classes at school must have been trying for you.

Maybe this helps explain why, in another thread, you appear to think it is an established fact that time didn't exist before the Big Bang.

As for my thinking that time didn't exist before the Big Bang it is actually generally accepted. Time is just another dimension of this Universe, just like length, width and height. Before the Big Bang there was no Universe so there was no time. You cannot have time without space. Interestingly enough St Augustine came up with this idea long before Einstein. He may have condemned unbaptised babies to hellfire for eternity but he was ahead of his time when it came to physics.

bonkey

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

As for my thinking that time didn't exist before the Big Bang it is actually generally accepted.

But you didn't say "generally accepted". You said "proved".

Making this argument as a defence of a criticism that you've swapped the meanings of "proof" and "evidence" is a bit self-defeating.

Pompey Magnus

bonkey wrote: »

But you didn't say "generally accepted". You said "proved".

Making this argument as a defence of a criticism that you've swapped the meanings of "proof" and "evidence" is a bit self-defeating.

I certainly did not say that it was proved. I made it clear that what I was saying was "from a scientific point of view", now if you would like to take exception to this then go ahead but I am pretty confident that since Einstein this has been accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community.

That said I have to say I find it incredible that our modern scientific understanding of space-time is being equated as being on the same level as a belief in God.

bonkey

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I certainly did not say that it was proved.

My apologies - it was kelly1 who made that (erroneous) claim.

I made it clear that what I was saying was "from a scientific point of view",

The scientific point of view does not and cannot address the existence of God. Thus, one cannot meaningfully argue anything with respect to God's existence "from a scientific point of view"*

That said I have to say I find it incredible that our modern scientific understanding of space-time is being equated as being on the same level as a belief in God.

What I was equating between the two threads was the (mis)use of terms such as "proof" and "evidence". I'm guessing this is what PDN also referred to.


* We can, of course, apply the same principles which underly the scientific method to the question. This should not be confused with science or a scientific perspective.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

First off you are operating on the assumption that the Catholic Church is correct in asserting that life begins at conception.

Well yes, this thread is about the Catholic Church.

I could simply say "speaking as an atheists babies don't have a soul, heaven isn't real and God doesn't exist" but that would some what go against spirit of the thread

Out of curiosity, when do you or your church state that the soul enters the human body?

PDN wrote: »

You appear to want to argue about why so few (comparatively speaking) suffer on earth or go to Hell.

No, I "want to argue" that it is even more unfair on those on Earth than previously thought, because God is quite happy to take 80% of humans into heaven without them toiling here on Earth.

Therefore the main justification for Earth in the first place, that we need to demonstrate in an environment of free will our devotion to God, doesn't really seem to work.

PDN wrote: »

I guess this proves Wiki will argue about anything. :pac::pac::pac::pac:

No, it proves that you don't seem to follow any of the arguments against Christianity. :pac::pac::pac:

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Out of curiosity, when do you or your church state that the soul enters the human body?

My church has no official position on it.

I personally believe that it is at some point after conception but before birth.

JoeB-

PDN wrote: »

Speaking as a non-Catholic Christian, babies would not have to be punished for any crime at all since they've done anything wrong.

Ok, so that opens the door for well meaning Christians to kill their new born children to guarantee them entry into heaven... maybe even God will see that the parents were simply trying to do the best for the children and reward them with a ticket to heaven too... after all god is supposedly good.

PDN wrote: »

Your definition of faith is at fault as well. Faith does not mean to believe without any evidence.

As far as I am concerned there is no evidence or proof of God... so faith is required.. i.e why follow rules when there is absolutely no evidence of a purpose to it?

I can't see the difference between evidence and proof, there is none of either that is believeable.

The final point is that to follow god is to be complicit in his ruthless actions and his evil ways... the moral action is to stand up and say 'god, you are out of line and i am protesting, i have no desire to be a part of this, look... you are TORTURING those poor souls, please put them out of their misery'

PDN

JoeBallantine wrote: »

Ok, so that opens the door for well meaning Christians to kill their new born children to guarantee them entry into heaven... maybe even God will see that the parents were simply trying to do the best for the children and reward them with a ticket to heaven too... after all god is supposedly good.

No more than the Catholic doctrine would open the door for Catholics to kill their children immediately after baptism. What nonsense.

I can't see the difference between evidence and proof

OK, so you are genuinely unable to see a simple distinction between two different concepts. That I understand. After all, not all people are able to think very logically. What I don't understand is why you would want to boast about your intellectual limitations on an internet discussion board.

JoeB-

PDN wrote: »

No more than the Catholic doctrine would open the door for Catholics to kill their children immediately after baptism. What nonsense.

Is it nonsense? Are Christians not living in terror that they or their children may go to hell? Would parents not donate an organ for their children on this mortal coil? Many parent say they would do anything for their children, this most likely includes death if the children were guaranteed to be saved... so why not sacrifice your immortal soul for the guaranteed immortal salvation of your children?

PDN wrote: »

OK, so you are genuinely unable to see a simple distinction between two different concepts. That I understand. After all, not all people are able to think very logically. What I don't understand is why you would want to boast about your intellectual limitations on an internet discussion board.

You misunderstand... I was responding to your repeated efforts to draw a distinction between evidence and absolute proof... as I say there is neither of either so why draw a meaningless distinction? Admittedly there are small amounts of 'evidence', e.g the bible... but this is in no way compelling or believeable.. after all there are many competing religions each with their own sacred texts, why are you so sure you are subscribed to the correct one?

Doubtless if you were born in a different geographical location you would not be posting here, you'd be on the Islam forum or some other forum. This is crucial, if there was only one religion then God may have a point saying we have to believe absolutely with no proof and little evidence, as it is with a multiplicity of religions it is totally unreasonable of god to expect us to choose between them. So it is Gods problem, not mine... he is quite imcompetent for a supposed omniscient and all powerful creator God.

If God is as you say it is unlikely he will choose to torture me for all eternity for exercising a bit of reason anyway so I'm covered. And I don't have to constantly feel guilty and atone for thought crimes and my sexuality.

Cheers
Joe

PDN

JoeBallantine wrote: »

Is it nonsense? Are Christians not living in terror that they or their children may go to hell?

Of course they are not living in terror. Where are you getting this nonsense from? A true Christian believes that they are going to heaven, so why should they be in terror of hell?

It may indeed be possible for someone who is clinically insane to think they are doing their child a favour by killing them - just as it is possible for someone to think they are a Jedi knight. However, I have never heard of any Christian who would kill their child for the reasons you describe.

You misunderstand... I was responding to your repeated efforts to draw a distinction between evidence and absolute proof... as I say there is neither of either so why draw a meaningless distinction? Admittedly there are small amounts of 'evidence', e.g the bible...

You have just contradicted yourself. If there are "small amounts" of evidence then it is untrue to say "there is neither of either".

but this is in no way compelling or believeable

Maybe you should look up believable in the dictionary? The fact that billions of people actually do believe the Bible makes your statement demonstrably false.

Doubtless if you were born in a different geographical location you would not be posting here, you'd be on the Islam forum or some other forum.

You don't know where I was born. Are you seriously trying to argue that no Christians were born in Saudi Arabia, or that no Muslims were born in Dublin?

This is crucial, if there was only one religion then God may have a point saying we have to believe absolutely with no proof and little evidence, as it is with a multiplicity of religions it is totally unreasonable of god to expect us to choose between them.

It is not unreasonablte that God creates intelligent and rational beings and then asks them to make choices between various options. I think it is more unreasonable that we should act like children, fold our arms and stamp our feet, crying, "It's not fair - I'm too stupid to choose between right and wrong?"

If God is as you say it is unlikely he will choose to torture me for all eternity for exercising a bit of reason anyway so I'm covered. And I don't have to constantly feel guilty and atone for thought crimes and my sexuality.

That's your choice.

JoeB-

Yes, I used the word 'admittedly' as a concession to the fact that some people think the bible is evidence for Gods existence... do you take Dawkins book as 'evidence' that God doesn't exist?

When I say it's not 'believeable' I mean that in the sense that you would say scientology isn't believeable (despite the fact that some people believe) or that UFO's aren't believeable.. in other words, on the balance of all available evidence the conclusion would have to be at best inconclusive but really the correct conclusion would have to be that it is all mumbo jumbo.

It is unreasonable that god allows several (equally valid) religions to exist, how are we to choose? How choose between Chrsitianity, Islam or scientology? Why not believe in a sun god? Why not a god of the sea? I can write in a book that I am god, why not believe that? So God has failed to provide a reasonable choice... in the old testement he destroyed other gods... has he become impotent now? Is he unable to strike down the Islamists and the scientologists? If he doesn't do this he is making it impossible to choose him over any other god.

You believe because you have been indoctrinated, (brainwashed) and you are unable to examine evidence impartially and come to the 'correct' conclusion. There is an Indian guy (Babi?) who has miracles attributed to him and he claims to be God, do you believe him? And if not why not? (Whatever you say can be applied to your own beliefs)

People say they are Napolean, or re-incarnated, or abducted by aliens and 'probed', do you believe them?

I believe your mind has been captured by a mind virus and that if you didn't share your beliefs with many others you would be diagnosed as 'delusional'... as anyone else is if they think someone can read their thoughts and walk on water.... unless of course that mind reading person is the abrahamic god.

Cheers
Joe

PDN

JoeBallantine wrote: »

Yes, I used the word 'admittedly' as a concession to the fact that some people think the bible is evidence for Gods existence... do you take Dawkins book as 'evidence' that God doesn't exist?

I'm not sure which book you refer to. Dawkins has written more than one book. However, I do think that some of his arguments are 'evidence' against the existence of God and as such need to be examined. Therefore I would not attack an atheist as making their decision on the basis of no evidence. I believe both Christians and atheists have made decisions on the basis of evidence.

When I say it's not 'believeable' I mean that in the sense that you would say scientology isn't believeable (despite the fact that some people believe) or that UFO's aren't believeable.. in other words, on the balance of all available evidence the conclusion would have to be at best inconclusive but really the correct conclusion would have to be that it is all mumbo jumbo.

In the end it's up to most people to decide for themselves whether evidence is believable or not. You and I have reached different conclusions as to the evidence about God. You apparently feel the need to ridicule and deride the beliefs of those who take a different view to yourself. I prefer to be more tolerant of others' beliefs.

It is unreasonable that god allows several (equally valid) religions to exist, how are we to choose? How choose between Chrsitianity, Islam or scientology? Why not believe in a sun god? Why not a god of the sea? I can write in a book that I am god, why not believe that? So God has failed to provide a reasonable choice... in the old testement he destroyed other gods... has he become impotent now? Is he unable to strike down the Islamists and the scientologists? If he doesn't do this he is making it impossible to choose him over any other god.

That all depends on who decides whether a religion is 'valid' or not. You make your choices and you live with the consequences.

You believe because you have been indoctrinated, (brainwashed) and you are unable to examine evidence impartially and come to the 'correct' conclusion. There is an Indian guy (Babi?) who has miracles attributed to him and he claims to be God, do you believe him? And if not why not? (Whatever you say can be applied to your own beliefs)

You know nothing about me, so how about you cut out the childish accusations about my being brainwashed?

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

how about you cut out the childish accusations about my being brainwashed?

At this stage I've come to expect the 'brainwashed' card to be played.