why did god create cancer?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

And ... ?

and its the only answer I can fathom.

You don't think it is equally foolish to believe that the nature of the universe is confined and constrained by the limits of your own imagination?

Why, who's imagination should I be using? As i said, none of the alternatives work. Its that simple really.

I'm not following. There are no intellectual cartwheels required to say that the universe isn't designed.

The only intellectual cartwheels that are required are required if one is trying to put forward the case that the universe was created and designed by something intelligent, such as your claim that you cannot fathom an alternative.

I disagree. It actually gives a rather simple answer. Why have we got all the hallmarks of design? Because we were designed. Its cartwheels once you try take a designer out of the picture.

What do you think your inability to fathom an alternative demonstrates?

That I have heard of no feesable alternatives.

Why do you have to assume anything? "We don't know" is a perfectly valid answer, and often the most, or only, truthful one.

• What happened before the big bang - We don't know
• Was the universe created due to a natural process - We don't know
• Was the universe created by an intelligence - We don't know.

The idea that you can logic a god into existence simply through ignorance is ridiculous.

Is that what I did? I thought i gave you a brief description of a process of thought which brought me to my conclusion. 'We don't know', is certainly a perfectly valid answer, but when I've actually found a satisfactory answer, then i don't need to hold onto ignorance anymore.

Only because you already know that cars are built by intelligent creatures, ie humans.

If I had never seen a car in my life, yet found one, I'd still say it was designed.

It isn't a conspiracy, it is logical hypocrisy.

You for some reason cannot "fathom" a universe that was not designed by an intelligence (despite the simplicity of the basic functions of the universe), but you can some how "fathom" a super powerful divine being that wasn't designed or created by anything (despite the complexity of the basic functions of God).

Well actually, I can't truly say that. We only know what we are allowed to know. There's always a vision of a Zeus like god in the clouds, but we know very little about 'what' God is in terms of being I.E. what exactly spirit is.

That is rather inconsistent. "Foolish" one might say. It is hard to see that as anything other than simply accepting what you want to hear and dismissing what you don't.

Not really about want. As i mentioned, my sense refuses to accept anything other than a creator. 'We don't know' may be a conclusion you are happy to settle on for now. However, I found an answer that makes sense to me.

Again this goes back to the discussion on the atheism forum about clouding ones judgment with one's own personal desire for something to be true.

I think one cannot switch off their brain in such a manner. However, for me its not really about my desire for it to be true. Its about it making sense, and that there are no other answers that satisfy.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I have no idea what happened before the Big Bang, though I find the idea of a previous universe very interesting.

What I'm wondering is how in the name of Allah can you sit there and say you find your own arguments convincing?

The great thing about the self, is that i am the only one that needs convincing. If someone else doesn't find it convincing, it makes no odds. Unless of course they have an alternative which I find more convincing. This happens regularly in my beliefs, where I've held a certain belief firmly for years and argued stronly for them. Then an alternative is proposed which I find more convincing, so I cease to believe the former etc. Similarly to your own view, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but have informed you of my view.

Akrasia

JimiTime wrote: »

Quite simply put, its the only answer that I can fathom. Whatever reasonings and arguements are out there, to believe that we are not the work of a designer is quite simply, foolish, IMO. For all the intellectual cartwheels that people do to say we are not designed, none have offered a alternative as far as I'm concerned, and I'm what matters to me.

Um, what about evolution by natural selection? Its extremely elegant, it has enormous amounts of evidence to support it, and it is capable of explaining all of the enormous diversity of life we find on earth without any need for a designer. (on the other hand, there is evidence to show flaws in the design of certain animals, organs and plants that would not have arisen if an infinitely knowledgeable deity had personally designed them.)

Until such an alternative is offered, I'm not going to assume that all the evidence of design I see, happened randomly. If I went to Jupiter and found a Car, I'd be the same. I'd see the effect of a cause. The hand of a designer.

If I saw a fully formed machine on a desolate planet like Jupiter I'd assume a designer too. But that's nothing like what happened on earth. Complex lifeforms didn't just randomly appear out of nowhere. They evolved over billions of years in a natural process that doesn't require an external intelligence.

There seems to be this thinking of 'Oh you guys just defined your god out of being testable'.

But that's what you did.

In ancient times, gods were things you could see and/or touch. They were the sun and the sea and the earth or anthropromorphic entities that supposedly walked the earth. But as we began to discover more about the universe we moved the goalposts so that gods were non physical spirits that lived in the clouds, but even then, the gods did make physical contact with the world regularly to deliver prophesies and smite people.

Now that we know so much about astrology and physics there's no room for god in everyday physical and chemical processes, so he's assumed to live in a separate plane of existence that can never be proven or unproven (essential for the survival of religion because if there was any possible way of disproving god, it would have been done long ago)

Also things like 'You can't answer who made God'. Like its this big conspiracy. I suppose you can believe it is, thats your perogative, doesn't make it convincing to me though.

it's not supposed to be a conspiracy. Its just explaining why the 'something must have created the universe' argument doesn't answer anything. If you can't demonstrate a necessity for god, then there is no reason to believe in him

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

and its the only answer I can fathom.

But what relevance do you think that has?

Do you think the universe is limited to functioning in a manner you can fathom?

JimiTime wrote: »

Why, who's imagination should I be using?

No ones. Your imagination, or lack of, is irrelevant. As I said the universe is not constrained by your ability to imagine how it may work.

JimiTime wrote: »

As i said, none of the alternatives work. Its that simple really.

What do you mean none of them work? You couldn't possible know what they all are, let alone if they work or not.

Humans have only got to the stage where we can seriously start thinking about the Big Bang in the last 100 years, we have only formed a small number of ideas about its cause or what happened "before" and most are far to complicated for me or you or anyone without a PhD in theoretical physics to even figure out, let alone assess if they "work" or not. And that is only the ones we have so far come up with.

JimiTime wrote: »

I disagree. It actually gives a rather simple answer.

Only if you stop at that answer and are content to simply accept it.

"Bob did it" is an equally simple answer.

But one would be compelled to ask further answers. For some reason religious people seem happy to simply stop at "God did it" and think that some how makes sense or provides a satisfactory solution to the issue.

JimiTime wrote: »

Why have we got all the hallmarks of design? Because we were designed. Its cartwheels once you try take a designer out of the picture.

We have the hallmarks of design most likely because we were designed.

Its how you jump from that to saying that the universe was created and designed by an intelligence that requires the cartwheels, the main cartwheel is that you can't fathom or understand any other possibility.

JimiTime wrote: »

That I have heard of no feesable alternatives.

Firstly why is God "feasible"

God is a completely supernatural being. If you accept completely supernatural explanations then pretty much any alternative explanation is feasible, since supernatural explanations can do what ever the heck they like. I could say that a supernatural time traveling super intelligent squirrel did it and that would be as feasible as any other supernatural explanation.

Secondly, you being presented with what you consider a feasible alternative is actually irrelevant.

As I said, I would seriously doubt your ability to judge if an alternative that contains advanced theoretical physics is feasible or not, but also God, or a creator, doesn't become the answer simply because you can't think of another one.

JimiTime wrote: »

Is that what I did? I thought i gave you a brief description of a process of thought which brought me to my conclusion. 'We don't know', is certainly a perfectly valid answer, but when I've actually found a satisfactory answer, then i don't need to hold onto ignorance anymore.

But your "answer" is based on your own ignorance.

You can't fathom a universe that wasn't created, therefore it "makes sense" that it was created.

You can't fathom a creator that wouldn't be loving and benevolent, therefore it makes sense that he is benevolent

You pause slightly when you see bad things happen, but then conclude that Christians say their god is loving and benevolent, but they also have an explanation for why bad things happen, this must be the right one. This to you make sense.

And so on ...

You can use that logic to arrive at any comforting answer you like. I can't fathom my wife cheating on me, therefore it makes sense she isn't. I can't fathom me failing my driving test therefore it makes sense that I won't.

Again reality is not constrained by what you can or cannot fathom happening or existing. The two things are totally unconnected concepts.

JimiTime wrote: »

If I had never seen a car in my life, yet found one, I'd still say it was designed.

Again, arguing based on your own ignorance.

What if you saw the Giants Causeway. Would you say that was designed as well?

Humans always think something that appears ordered or complicated in nature must have been designed by something like a god, until they find a way to explain it without invoking a supernatural guess

One would have thought we, as a species, would have stopped doing that by now, considering how many times we have got this wrong in the past.

Supernatural explanations (normally presented as part of religion) are always the explanation until they aren't and we look back in wonder at how anyone would have believed these explanations in the first place.

But they accept them in exactly the same jumps of logic as you are using here, the inability to imagine another explanation leading to the acceptance of the supernatural explanation, nearly aways a framework around a human like supernatural entity doing human like things for a human like purpose.

JimiTime wrote: »

Well actually, I can't truly say that. We only know what we are allowed to know. There's always a vision of a Zeus like god in the clouds, but we know very little about 'what' God is in terms of being I.E. what exactly spirit is.

If you don't know anything about the creator why is he a feasible answer?

Is he simply feasible because the religion claims he acts in a human life manner, and this is something you can related to (being a human and living in human society where we see nature altered by humans for human purpose)?

JimiTime wrote: »

I think one cannot switch off their brain in such a manner.

One would have thought so :pac:

But an argument along the lines of "I can't fathom anything else" is exactly that.

JimiTime wrote: »

However, for me its not really about my desire for it to be true. Its about it making sense, and that there are no other answers that satisfy.

But look at your logic that you used to get to this point. You can't imagine a world that wasn't created? You can't imagine a creator that wasn't benevolent?

All these things are your lack of being able to imagine things that are uncomfortable and unsettling. A universe that wasn't created is devoid of meaning and purpose, and as such we are devoid of meaning and purpose. A universe created by an indifferent creator is equally harsh.

You say it doesn't make sense, but that seems to be an emotional response rather than a rational one. An indifferent harsh random world doesn't make as much sense as a loving purposeful created world.

Which is totally understandable, but the point I'm trying to make that you seem to be missing is that none of that matters.

The universe is not under obligation to appear to make sense to us, or to be what we hope it would be.

iUseVi

^ ^ ^ ^
Most excellent posting.

(Couldn't think of anything to add.):)

failsafe

JimiTime wrote:

If I had never seen a car in my life, yet found one, I'd still say it was designed.

By whom would you assume it was designed? Man? Elves? Bacteria? Ants? Aliens?

If I was to notice the design in the world, and was therefore to conclude was created by fairies or ghosts, would you think that that is a rational conclusion? If you don't, I suppose you now see how I react to your conclusion that it looks designed; therefore it must have been God.

Have you heard of the Theory of Evolution by natural selection? It encapsulates in a very elegant, simple, understandable way how very complex and seemingly designed entities can come gradually to be.

Your posts also make me wonder about what extent you believe we are created. Did God fashion to world, or did the big bang happen (with gravity forming the stars, planets and all which that entails).

JimiTime wrote:

However, for me its not really about my desire for it to be true. Its about it making sense, and that there are no other answers that satisfy.

I suppose that's what it really boils down to. What I (and a few others here) yearn for are universal truths, even if they don't feel nice or are difficult to grasp. What you seem to be after is a "personal truth", not something that is 'true' by academic standards or definition, but that helps you deal with the world. Your need for a personal loving God to be true is perfectly natural, and it is the reason why humans have always had religion. Yours is a "God of the gaps". When the ancient Greeks & Romans didn't understand the workings of the solar system, that’s where they invoked their Gods. How a complex being can come to exist isn't something that you seem able to understand, so that is what God does for you. This is the reason that cultures always believe themselves to be "created in God's image", whether their gods are jealous, aggressive, loving, benevolent reflects the culture and ideals of the people that believe in it. Have a read up on evolution, it will help you understand why this is true, and help you move beyond needing to invoke God as a default 'placeholder explanation' for things you don't know or can't understand.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

But what relevance do you think that has?

Do you think the universe is limited to functioning in a manner you can fathom?


No ones. Your imagination, or lack of, is irrelevant. As I said the universe is not constrained by your ability to imagine how it may work.


What do you mean none of them work? You couldn't possible know what they all are, let alone if they work or not.

Humans have only got to the stage where we can seriously start thinking about the Big Bang in the last 100 years, we have only formed a small number of ideas about its cause or what happened "before" and most are far to complicated for me or you or anyone without a PhD in theoretical physics to even figure out, let alone assess if they "work" or not. And that is only the ones we have so far come up with.


Only if you stop at that answer and are content to simply accept it.

"Bob did it" is an equally simple answer.

But one would be compelled to ask further answers. For some reason religious people seem happy to simply stop at "God did it" and think that some how makes sense or provides a satisfactory solution to the issue.


We have the hallmarks of design most likely because we were designed.

Its how you jump from that to saying that the universe was created and designed by an intelligence that requires the cartwheels, the main cartwheel is that you can't fathom or understand any other possibility.


Firstly why is God "feasible"

God is a completely supernatural being. If you accept completely supernatural explanations then pretty much any alternative explanation is feasible, since supernatural explanations can do what ever the heck they like. I could say that a supernatural time traveling super intelligent squirrel did it and that would be as feasible as any other supernatural explanation.

Secondly, you being presented with what you consider a feasible alternative is actually irrelevant.

As I said, I would seriously doubt your ability to judge if an alternative that contains advanced theoretical physics is feasible or not, but also God, or a creator, doesn't become the answer simply because you can't think of another one.


But your "answer" is based on your own ignorance.

You can't fathom a universe that wasn't created, therefore it "makes sense" that it was created.

You can't fathom a creator that wouldn't be loving and benevolent, therefore it makes sense that he is benevolent

You pause slightly when you see bad things happen, but then conclude that Christians say their god is loving and benevolent, but they also have an explanation for why bad things happen, this must be the right one. This to you make sense.

And so on ...

You can use that logic to arrive at any comforting answer you like. I can't fathom my wife cheating on me, therefore it makes sense she isn't. I can't fathom me failing my driving test therefore it makes sense that I won't.

Again reality is not constrained by what you can or cannot fathom happening or existing. The two things are totally unconnected concepts.


Again, arguing based on your own ignorance.

What if you saw the Giants Causeway. Would you say that was designed as well?

Humans always think something that appears ordered or complicated in nature must have been designed by something like a god, until they find a way to explain it without invoking a supernatural guess

One would have thought we, as a species, would have stopped doing that by now, considering how many times we have got this wrong in the past.

Supernatural explanations (normally presented as part of religion) are always the explanation until they aren't and we look back in wonder at how anyone would have believed these explanations in the first place.

But they accept them in exactly the same jumps of logic as you are using here, the inability to imagine another explanation leading to the acceptance of the supernatural explanation, nearly aways a framework around a human like supernatural entity doing human like things for a human like purpose.



If you don't know anything about the creator why is he a feasible answer?

Is he simply feasible because the religion claims he acts in a human life manner, and this is something you can related to (being a human and living in human society where we see nature altered by humans for human purpose)?


One would have thought so :pac:

But an argument along the lines of "I can't fathom anything else" is exactly that.



But look at your logic that you used to get to this point. You can't imagine a world that wasn't created? You can't imagine a creator that wasn't benevolent?

All these things are your lack of being able to imagine things that are uncomfortable and unsettling. A universe that wasn't created is devoid of meaning and purpose, and as such we are devoid of meaning and purpose. A universe created by an indifferent creator is equally harsh.

You say it doesn't make sense, but that seems to be an emotional response rather than a rational one. An indifferent harsh random world doesn't make as much sense as a loving purposeful created world.

Which is totally understandable, but the point I'm trying to make that you seem to be missing is that none of that matters.

The universe is not under obligation to appear to make sense to us, or to be what we hope it would be.

You are mixing up what i have actually said. i have said, if you look at my original post, that 'i can't fathom that we weren't created'. Not, 'i can't fathom we weren't created by the God described in the bible'. Finding What or who created us, came after the first bit. Now, if we are created, I look at the creation for signs of what kind of creator did it. Its this that lead me to the God described in the bible. Again, you can look at my original post about it.

JimiTime

failsafe wrote: »

By whom would you assume it was designed? Man? Elves? Bacteria? Ants? Aliens?

If I was to notice the design in the world, and was therefore to conclude was created by fairies or ghosts, would you think that that is a rational conclusion? If you don't, I suppose you now see how I react to your conclusion that it looks designed; therefore it must have been God.

Again, i don't think you really read what I wrote in my reply originally. Your conclusion above is fair enough if I had stopped at 'we must have been created'. But read my original post on it again, to see where I went with it.

Have you heard of the Theory of Evolution by natural selection? It encapsulates in a very elegant, simple, understandable way how very complex and seemingly designed entities can come gradually to be.

I'm delighted at least that you have recognised the design element. Even if you only say seemingly.

Your posts also make me wonder about what extent you believe we are created. Did God fashion to world, or did the big bang happen (with gravity forming the stars, planets and all which that entails).

Maybe. I don't really know tbh. If the big bang happened, then that was the method, if it didn't, it wasn't. Doesn't really matter.

I suppose that's what it really boils down to. What I (and a few others here) yearn for are universal truths, even if they don't feel nice or are difficult to grasp. What you seem to be after is a "personal truth", not something that is 'true' by academic standards or definition

Why would I be looking to conform to academic standards? Truth is truth, whether we believe, or a body of people believe, it or not.

, but that helps you deal with the world.

It certainly does.

Your need for a personal loving God to be true is perfectly natural, and it is the reason why humans have always had religion.

LOL, you sound like a therapist. 'Its ok what you are feeling is perfectly natural'.:D thanks for the reassurance.:)

How a complex being can come to exist isn't something that you seem able to understand

I do understand. We were created. I have found truth. The question is, do you have the answer to how we came into being?

This is the reason that cultures always believe themselves to be "created in God's image", whether their gods are jealous, aggressive, loving, benevolent reflects the culture and ideals of the people that believe in it. Have a read up on evolution, it will help you understand why this is true, and help you move beyond needing to invoke God as a default 'placeholder explanation' for things you don't know or can't understand.

Evolution explains little. Also, your concept of created gods may also be right. There is only one God that wasn't created. I suppose its up to you whether you want to look for him or not.

Akrasia

JimiTime wrote: »

You are mixing up what i have actually said. i have said, if you look at my original post, that 'i can't fathom that we weren't created'. Not, 'i can't fathom we weren't created by the God described in the bible'. Finding What or who created us, came after the first bit. Now, if we are created, I look at the creation for signs of what kind of creator did it. Its this that lead me to the God described in the bible. Again, you can look at my original post about it.

Your lack of fathomability is unfathomable to me considering the overwhelming weight of evidence in favour of unguided natural selection.

You really should do a bit more research. Denying evolution is akin to denying gravity.

If I'm misrepresenting you, and you actually do accept evolution, this statement

I disagree. It actually gives a rather simple answer. Why have we got all the hallmarks of design? Because we were designed. Its cartwheels once you try take a designer out of the picture.

indicates that you don't really understand it.

Akrasia

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm delighted at least that you have recognised the design element. Even if you only say seemingly.

Have you ever considered that our human process of design happens to resemble the natural process of evolution rather than the other way around?

We start off simple, and build on what works. That is the only way it can happen. (we started off flying with balloons and gliders, not space shuttles)Of course there are major differences, human design usually has an end goal, while natural selection is guided only by the what the prevailing conditions allow

Evolution explains little.

Evolution explains (extremely well) the origin and diversity of life. I wouldn't call that 'little'

JimiTime

Akrasia wrote: »

Your lack of fathomability is unfathomable to me considering the overwhelming weight of evidence in favour of unguided natural selection.

You really should do a bit more research. Denying evolution is akin to denying gravity.

If I'm misrepresenting you, and you actually do accept evolution, this statement indicates that you don't really understand it.

Thanks for the heads up.

JimiTime

Akrasia wrote: »

Evolution explains (extremely well) the origin and diversity of life. I wouldn't call that 'little'

Apologies so. Could you tell me how evolution explains the 'origin' of life? Indeed this may well be a breakthrough for me.

Akrasia

JimiTime wrote: »

Apologies so. Could you tell me how evolution explains the 'origin' of life? Indeed this may well be a breakthrough for me.

The origin bit was a mis-statement (I was gonna write origin of species but changed my mind and forgot to delete that bit, and the website was very slow at that moment and wouldn't allow me edit it straight away)

That said, evolution does explain the origin of complex life from extremely primitive organic compounds.

The field of abiogenesis is still debating the origin of the first organic compounds, but there is a fair bit of evidence that they can originate naturally through chemical reactions. (including laboratory experiments that have successfully generated 'life' from non life)

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

You are mixing up what i have actually said. i have said, if you look at my original post, that 'i can't fathom that we weren't created'. Not, 'i can't fathom we weren't created by the God described in the bible'.

I know that, in fact I give considerable mention to how you get from one assumption to the other.

As I said if a person believes that there must be a god then it is not a question of if god exists, but simply a question of determining which god is the correct god.

Again if someone believes that the god that must exist must also be benevolent, this narrows down the set to be considered further.

The last step is limiting the set to religions that offer explanations of a benevolent god that also offer explanations as to why bad thing still happen if the god is benevolent.

I would imagine you got from that last stage to accepting the Christian god as being the benevolent creator that you have "reasoned" must exist, through a very simple process mostly down to familiarity with the nice things Jesus says in the Bible.

Did you actually read my reply to your posts?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Did you actually read my reply to your posts?

Yes.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Yes.

Well then, what is the issue?

I never stated the things you attribute to me in your above post (paraphrased or not), in fact I went into length discussing the opposite.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Well then, what is the issue?

I never stated the things you attribute to me in your above post (paraphrased or not), in fact I went into length discussing the opposite.

Actually, it was the quote 'I can't fathom anything but a benevolent creator'. I never said that, and that lead me to believe you didn't understand my position. The rest of the post is really just comments on my lack of imagination, ignorance, the ability to switch off my brain etc.

Could you sell me an alternative to creation, without bringing up what I currently believe?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Actually, it was the quote 'I can't fathom anything but a benevolent creator'. I never said that, and that lead me to believe you didn't understand my position.

Well I didn't directly quote you saying that either.

I did paraphrase that as your conclusion because that is what you did say, only over the space of a number of passages, which since you raised the issue I can quote to you now (key points highlighted)

JimiTime wrote:

We 'cannot' be here without a creator ... Such a position I cannot fathom
...
I Love nature, the smell of a pine forest, the beauty of a Sunflower ... Reciprocated love ... The ability to have fun, to laugh. ... So I thought that this creator must want us to be happy.

You have (at least you appear to have) reached the conclusion that there must be a creator and he must be benevolent. And I see no explanation for that beyond you can't fathom or entertain an alternative explanation.

JimiTime wrote: »

The rest of the post is really just comments on my lack of imagination, ignorance, the ability to switch off my brain etc.

Well the whole post is that really

JimiTime wrote: »

Could you sell me an alternative to creation, without bringing up what I currently believe?

I seriously doubt it. Not unless you are prepared to look at this subject more rationally and impersonally.

As I said already, and others have commented, and this very question appears to demonstrate, your motivation here is to find a "answer" that is personally pleasing and comforting for you, irrespective of how rational or accurate that is to how the universe actually is.

If I do not present you with an alternative that ticks all the boxes of what you personally desire from an explanation (such as a benevolent creator) I seriously doubt I would be able to "sell" anything to you, because (to continue the metaphor) you won't buy it.

You seem to be simply ignoring the earlier point about your personal feelings having no bearing on the actual universe.

Whether or not an alternative can be sold to you has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the universe is obliged to be that way.

The most controversial theories of physics in the early 20th century, such as quantum phsysics, were not bought by most scientists, including Einstein, as these scientists had great trouble with the idea of a fluctuating reality, as summed up by Einstein's famous quote

"God does not play dice with the universe"

What he meant by that (Einstein did not believe in a Christian like god) is that he had very serious trouble with the idea that the uncertainty principle applied to the universe. He believed in a clock work like universe. He was wrong.

The point is that even Einstein's trouble with certain concepts of the universe have absolutely no bearing what so ever on how the universe does and will function. At no point did the universe go "Umm, Einstein doesn't like the fact that we have uncertainty, maybe we shouldn't"

Einstein wasn't sold on the uncertainty principle, but that had nothing to do with whether or not the uncertainty principle was accurate or not.

What this demonstrates is the fallacy (that even great scientists fall into from time to time) of thinking the universe must function in a manner that we find pleasing or easy to understand.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Well the whole post is that really

Duhhhhh. I can count to potato. Duhhhh.

I seriously doubt it.

Thought so.

No convincing alternative. Lots of speculation. Your arguement seems to be, there is no answer yet. Well i have one, thank you and good night. When the 'yet' becomes a reality, maybe I'll be convinced.

Akrasia

JimiTime wrote: »

Duhhhhh. I can count to potato. Duhhhh.


Thought so.

No convincing alternative. Lots of speculation. Your arguement seems to be, there is no answer yet. Well i have one, thank you and good night. When the 'yet' becomes a reality, maybe I'll be convinced.

'God did it' isn't an answer, it's a decision to stop questioning at that arbitrary point. Especially when you readily admit that you have no idea what god actually is.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Well i have one, thank you and good night. When the 'yet' becomes a reality, maybe I'll be convinced.

Again I seriously doubt it.

But so long as you are happy, that is the most important thing right

PDN

Akrasia wrote: »

'God did it' isn't an answer, it's a decision to stop questioning at that arbitrary point. Especially when you readily admit that you have no idea what god actually is.

If you are using the term 'god' to mean some being greater than humans but not necessarily supreme (as in the gods of the ancient Greeks or Romans) then it would be reasonable to ask who created such deities.

However, monotheists use the term 'God' to refer to a Being above or beyond which there is no other - a Supreme Being. Obviously such a Being cannot be created, for then that would entail a greater Being, at which point our Supreme Being would be longer supreme and therefore no longer 'God'. Therefore the question "Who created God?" is nonsensical.

Now, we all agree that some things are created - for example, a car. Therefore, unless we believe in an infinite progression of creators, then we all believe that the chain of creation must stop somewhere with something that has not being created by anything else or evolved from anything else.

Christians see this backward chain as stopping at God. That point is not arbitrarily chosen, but is rather based on a logical conclusion that a Supreme Being cannot have a creator.

However, those who argue that the backward chain of creation started at any other point (be it the Ford Motor Company, the first being recognisable as homo sapiens, an amoeba, or the Big Bang) have chosen an arbitrary point to stop questioning. This is because their chosen starting point (or maybe stopping point since we are tracing our steps backwards in time) does not logically preclude a creator at a further step back.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Christians see this backward chain as stopping at God. That point is not arbitrarily chosen, but is rather based on a logical conclusion that a Supreme Being cannot have a creator.

But that conclusion is the arbitrary bit, it is a conclusion based simply on definition.

You define a Supreme Being as the thing that is at the end of this trek backwards, and then define that point (the supreme being) as the point that the trek stops.

It is an arbitrary point because it depends on your definition of God. You could just as easily not define the Supreme Being as the end point and change the point.

Think of it this way. You say you will go to bed at the end of Big Brother at 10pm. You then go to bed at 10pm. You can say that you didn't jut go to bed at an arbitrary point in time, you went to bed at the end of Big Brother. But that ignores that you arbitrarily picked Big Brother as the time to go to bed in the first place. You could have picked the next program, or the previous program.

You define God as being the start and then say you don't arbitrarily pick the start point. But this ignores that you arbitrarily define God as being the start in the first place.

Just as there is no reason to go to bed at the end of Big Brother other than that you decided to, there is no reason that a supreme being is the start of everything other than that you decided to define him as such.

PDN wrote: »

However, those who argue that the backward chain of creation started at any other point (be it the Ford Motor Company, the first being recognisable as homo sapiens, an amoeba, or the Big Bang) have chosen an arbitrary point to stop questioning.

Or they can keep questioning, which is my point and I think Akrasia's as well.

Akrasia

PDN wrote: »

However, those who argue that the backward chain of creation started at any other point (be it the Ford Motor Company, the first being recognisable as homo sapiens, an amoeba, or the Big Bang) have chosen an arbitrary point to stop questioning. This is because their chosen starting point (or maybe stopping point since we are tracing our steps backwards in time) does not logically preclude a creator at a further step back.

I don't think scientists stop questioning at the big bang. There is a view that it may be impossible to know what happened before the big bang as information from before may not have survived that event (in the same way that we can measure the current expansion of the universe by examining the 'redshift' left over from the big bang event) but scientists are still questioning and looking for ways to expand our knowledge (

It is fundamentally different from deciding based on a lack of information that God was the start of everything and ending the debate there.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

However, monotheists use the term 'God' to refer to a Being above or beyond which there is no other - a Supreme Being. Obviously such a Being cannot be created, for then that would entail a greater Being, at which point our Supreme Being would be longer supreme and therefore no longer 'God'. Therefore the question "Who created God?" is nonsensical.

Well, if you're going to define "god" as the original, uncreated being, then the question is meaningless by definition.

But have you ever asked yourself whether it's reasonable to assume that there is such a creature in the first place? And even if there was, why there's only be one of them, not many? And whether or not it's reasonable to think that he/she/it/they is still alive in the same form now as back then? And so on.

So far, you've defined a hypothetical being into existence, but seem to have drawn the entirely unconnected conclusion that this is the same being as subsequently showed up in Bethlehem. I don't see how they are linked.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Again I seriously doubt it.

But so long as you are happy, that is the most important thing right

Well call me when you do, and we'll se if your doubt is realised. Until then, i will indeed be happy, as that certainly is very important.

preilly79

ch3rry wrote: »

why did god create nazis?
why did god create the taliban?
why did god create AIDS?
why did god create the bubonic plague?
why did god create homosexuality?
why did god create natural disasters?
why did god let 80,000 people die in the earthquakes in china?
why did god not save my aunt from cancer?
why did god give my granny arthritis? (she goes to mass every sunday)
why did god create siamese twins?
why did god create malaria?

Discussion of homosexuality aside, placing homosexuality in a list populated with Nazis, the Taliban, the Plague, natural disasters, cancer etc is an insult of the highest order.

PDN

preilly79 wrote: »

Discussion of homosexuality aside, placing homosexuality in a list populated with Nazis, the Taliban, the Plague, natural disasters, cancer etc is an insult of the highest order.

Indeed it is. Anti-Christians like to portray Christianity as homophobic, but homophobia is much more prevalent, and violent, among non-Christians. I think any homosexual is likely to feel lot safer in societies that are based on broadly Christian values than in China or North Korea (also Cuba & the former Soviet Union were fiercely homophobic).

Sapien

PDN wrote: »

Indeed it is. Anti-Christians like to portray Christianity as homophobic, but homophobia is much more prevalent, and violent, among non-Christians. I think any homosexual is likely to feel lot safer in societies that are based on broadly Christian values than in China or North Korea (also Cuba & the former Soviet Union were fiercely homophobic).

Right. So long as you can find one or two examples of places that are worse for gay people than historically Christian societies, then historically Christian societies are good for gay people. Nonsense, PDN. And it isn't even the case. Try Jamaica and Poland on for size. Uganda is 85% Christian, and it is currently in the early stages of a gay pogrom.

And, of course, there are degrees of homophobia, ranging from outright violence to moral condemnation and deprivation of equal rights. In the context of a non-homophobic society, Christianity almost invariably represents a pull to the latter.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Anti-Christians like to portray Christianity as homophobic

There is a reason for that, and I'm continually surprised that you seem to be unable to see it.

When people like Ratzinger(*) turn up saying that homosexuality is an "intrinsic moral disorder" and few believers register any dissent, you could perhaps understand why some people might conclude that he, and the hundreds of millions who follow his ethical leadership, are homophobic.

It's quite simple really.

(*) for example; most protestant preachers say equivalent things.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

There is a reason for that, and I'm continually surprised that you seem to be unable to see it.

Oh, don't worry, I can see it all right. I can see that such people don't really understand what constitutes homophobia.

When people like Ratzinger(*) turn up saying that homosexuality is an "intrinsic moral disorder" and few believers register any dissent, you could perhaps understand why some people might conclude that he, and the hundreds of millions who follow his ethical leadership, are homophobic.

People like Ratzinger et al also say that heterosexual relationships outside of marriage, the worship of idols and other things contrary to Christian morality are intrinsic moral disorder. However, no-one accuses them of being fornicatorphobes or idolatorphobes. Jews see eating bacon as being wrong but no-one accuses them of being pigeaterphobes.

Yet, because a Christian sees homosexual acts as immoral and therefore incompatible with practising Christianity, they are labelled 'homophobe' - even when they make no attempt to restrict the rights of non-Christians to practice said behaviour.

It's quite simple really.

It's simple that anyone who doesn't say, "I think homosexuality is a wonderful idea" is therefore accused of hating or fearing homosexuals?