The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

King Mob wrote: »

So that's a yes to both. The rest is empty waffle.

Its actually a no ... God didn't design cancer ... it was 'designed' by Satan and Adam ... whose actions lead directly to the introduction of death and cancer into the world.

King Mob wrote: »

Now we've established that he was responsible, lets establish intent.

The intent was there allright ... Adam allied Himself with Satan, despite being warned that he would surely die.

King Mob wrote: »

Did God know that his design would lead to suffering and death that could have been avoided? Yes or no?

He knew that suffering and death couldn't be avoided ... with the way things would turn out ... but He also knew that you and me would exist ... and have our being ... and in my case, love Him.
... and I'm certainly glad that God still went ahead with His creation ... because I wouldn't exist, if He didn't do so.

King Mob wrote: »

Did God try to rectify his heinous actions in designing cancer? yes or no?

He didn't design it ... so He didn't have any responsibilty to rectify it ... but He did send Jesus Christ down on earth to atone for all sin therby ensuring that we don't have suffer spiritual death on top of physical death.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

He!

His name was Bradley and no I didn't know him but have followed his story for the last year.

Another poster said it was a girl ... so I asumed it was.
We lost a boy actually ... so the loss of Bradley is bringing it all back to me.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Don't start with this cop out sh/te JC it was YOUR "god" that did this by choice!

He allows it allright ... but, as I've explained, there are valid reasons for not making a fallen Humanity physically immortal.
Difficult to accept, if you have lost a child, I know ... but quite understandable when one looks at the big picture.
Of course, if one doesn't believe in God ... or an eternal reward in Heaven ... then life can look like a bit of a sick joke ... or just molecules 'doing their thing'.

oscarBravo wrote: »

There are two possible explanations for the giraffe's laryngeal nerve: one is that it's a vestige of evolution from an earlier species without a neck; the other is that it was purposely designed that way by an "intelligent" designer who decided to make it uselessly extravagant for no useful purpose.

No, there are three possible explanations for the way organisms are

1 An intelligent designer
2 Blind, dumb, mindless, directionless evolution
3 Evolution that is the opposite of 2 i.e. intelligent

1 and 2 regard living things as essentially machines while 3 regards them as creative and self-organising, which form and maintain themselves.

Machines have no purposes or ends of their own, while organisms do.

I don't quite get why there must be such an insistence on something utterly unprovable over and above what we can actually see.

Death is necessary for every living organism because either a population is immortal or it breeds, it can't really do both. Breeding, the introduction of new individuals is far more beneficial than being immortal, as every organism is subjected to wear and tear by its environment and its own systems.

The introduction of all these gradual changes over time leads to some unhealthy mutations or genetic couplings (how genes express, not the pair involved!), which, along with environmental damage, manifests as disease, cancers, etc. That and other organisms evolving into niches that ultimately prove harmful to the host (pathogens).

Like, we can see this. We have been able to see it for millions of years. Why on earth would one reject all visible evidence to pin all ones hopes on something intangible, designed to be unprovable and thus stunt exploration of what problems can be solved?

Ultimately, the "God wills it" approach leads to the point of view that treating diseases (amongst other things) is arrogantly interfering in God's will, despite a complete lack of evidence. And there never can be evidence beyond talking around in circles regarding hypotheticals. It is..infantilising humanity to insist that they cannot or must not change "God's Will". Surely if there is a loving God, He would want us to grow, learn, question, investigate, study and help others, rather than throw everything to Him, like toddlers utterly reliant on mammy rather than mature adults who can love their mammy but also get along with their own lives without needing to bring everything back to her to solve.

I prefer to stand my world view on stuff that is actually there and able to be investigated. God did not create cancer. Satan did not create cancer. There was no actual Adam, it is a foundation myth to explain ultimate beginnings, just as all religions seek to explain. Science seeks to explain it too, but the essential difference is a reliance on what is tangible rather than what can never be more than hypothetical "what ifs".

Samaris wrote: »

I don't quite get why there must be such an insistence on something utterly unprovable over and above what we can actually see.

But we can actually see the evidence for the actions of God ... and we can't see evidence for the idea that pondkind turned into mankind via selected mistakes ... and it doesn't even make any sense.

Samaris wrote: »

Death is necessary for every living organism because either a population is immortal or it breeds, it can't really do both. Breeding, the introduction of new individuals is far more beneficial than being immortal, as every organism is subjected to wear and tear by its environment and its own systems.

If they were immortal ... there wouldn't be any wear and tear. There are advantages to immortality in a world where evil and sin doesn't exist there ... but any advantages of immortality are outweighed by disadvantages in a Fallen World.

Samaris wrote: »

The introduction of all these gradual changes over time leads to some unhealthy mutations or genetic couplings (how genes express, not the pair involved!), which, along with environmental damage, manifests as disease, cancers, etc. That and other organisms evolving into niches that ultimately prove harmful to the host (pathogens).

... and that's basically all that can happen with deleterious mutagenesis.

Samaris wrote: »

Like, we can see this. We have been able to see it for millions of years. Why on earth would one reject all visible evidence to pin all ones hopes on something intangible, designed to be unprovable and thus stunt exploration of what problems can be solved?

Why indeed ... but, you see the intangible, with either evidence or logic supporting it is actually biogenesis and spontaneous evolution as explantions for how we goit here!!!:)

Samaris wrote: »

Ultimately, the "God wills it" approach leads to the point of view that treating diseases (amongst other things) is arrogantly interfering in God's will, despite a complete lack of evidence. And there never can be evidence beyond talking around in circles regarding hypotheticals. It is..infantilising humanity to insist that they cannot or must not change "God's Will".

No Chrisitian I know believes thta diseases are 'Gods will' ... and many eminent medical doctors are Christian ... and indeed some are also Creationists ... and they are actively involved in researching cures for various diseases. God never told us not to try and amelorate the effects of tha Fall ... indeed Jesus cured the ill and raised the dead when He was on Earth.

Samaris wrote: »

Surely if there is a loving God, He would want us to grow, learn, question, investigate, study and help others, rather than throw everything to Him, like toddlers utterly reliant on mammy rather than mature adults who can love their mammy but also get along with their own lives without needing to bring everything back to her to solve.

I think that is exactly what He wants.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I prefer to stand my world view on stuff that is actually there and able to be investigated. God did not create cancer. Satan did not create cancer. There was no actual Adam, it is a foundation myth to explain ultimate beginnings, just as all religions seek to explain. Science seeks to explain it too, but the essential difference is a reliance on what is tangible rather than what can never be more than hypothetical "what ifs".

... and your reasoning is impeccable, if there isn't a God ... but then if there is? ... and it seem like there is and He created us ... things are somewhat different.

J C wrote: »

... You're blaiming the wrong person ... the two prime movers in our misfortune are Satan and Adam.

Once evil was freely invited into the world by Adam ... then sin and physical death followed.
We all die as a result ... and it is particularly tragic and upsetting when a child dies ... but when a much loved adult dies, particulary if it is a sudden death, it can be pretty devastaing as well.

You can rail against God all you like ... but God has His reasons. I believe that He is minimising our suffering by allowing death in our Fallen World ... like I have said, the alternative is physical immortality, with thousands of people more evil that Stalin or Hitler amongst us ... and no way of calling a halt to their evil ... and this would be vastly worse IMO.
Physical death places a limit on evil, that could otherwise not be imposed.

Minimising suffering?

Allowing people to die long slow agonising deaths? Allowing children to starve to death for want of water or a bowl of rice? Your "god" comes across as even more evil than "satan" because he has the power to stop this unnecessary suffering in an instantbyet CHOOSES to let people die for no other reason than he can't be bothered!

looksee wrote: »

And that (bolded) is the bottom line. You believe, therefore it is so. But just because you believe, with no evidence, it doesn't provide any basis for the rest of us to be convinced.

Had you read the rest of my post you would have found the reason for my belief ... I said that I believe that God is minimising our suffering by allowing death in our Fallen World ... like I have said, the alternative is physical immortality, with thousands of people more evil that Stalin or Hitler amongst us ... and no way of calling a halt to their evil ... and this would be vastly worse IMO.
Physical death places a limit on evil, that could otherwise not be imposed.
You are free to disagree with my argument ... but please don't say that I haven't backed up my stated belief ... because I have provided a cogent argument supporting it.

looksee wrote: »

You have been instructing us for 10 years and I am not aware of one single person who has said, JC, your arguments have convinced me!

I wouldn't call it 'instructing' myself ... just presenting the truth ... and laying the choice of Salvation before the unsaved.
After that, it's between each person and God, whether they choose to act on it.
That's what freedom is all about.

J C wrote: »

It's certainly not that He can't be bothered ... He loves us and is very concerned for our welfare ... but, for His own reasons, He generally avoids interfering with the Laws of Nature and our free-will.

... and I don't particularly want Him to start messing with the Laws or nature or my free-will ... yes, the price that I will ultimately pay is my death ... but then Heaven awaits anyone who wants it, at that stage ... so I'm happy with the overall package ... of having my freedom in a World underwritten by law and eternal bliss in the next world.

Typical JC cop out answer.

robindch wrote: »

A fallacy which has been debunked philsophically and biologically.

Evolution supposedly has no direction or goals but the language used by biologists is very teleological.

Rupert Sheldrake says of Dawkins and his Selfish Gene concept:

'In Dawkins’s words, “DNA moves in mysterious ways.” The DNA molecules are not only intelligent, they are also selfish, ruthless and competitive, like “successful Chicago gangsters.” The selfish genes “create form,” “mould matter” and engage in “evolutionary arms races”; they even “aspire to immortality.” These genes are no longer mere molecules.'

'What Dawkins does is to project on to the DNA molecules the purposive
vital factors of vitalism, trying to squeeze the soul into chemical
genes, which are thereby endowed with instructions, plans, purposes
and intentions they cannot possibly have. He admits that these are
metaphors, adding, “Incidentally, there is of course no ‘architect’.”
But despite occasional disclaimers, the entire force of his argument
depends on anthropocentric metaphors and molecules that have come to
life. He is a vitalist in molecular clothing.'

Samaris wrote: »

So if a person politely tells you that they are quite happy as is and do not wish to be repeatedly proselytised at in the interests of being converted, I assume you would accept that and stop as that is what freedom is all about?

Yes, I will not proselytise somebody who makes it clear that they have no wish to know about God.
However, this is never the case on the A & A, ... this forum has many threads on religion and issues that impact directly on religion ... so it is to be expected that religious Theists and religious Atheists will contribute to these threads.:)

Samaris wrote: »

Except the "it seems like there is". Why does it seem so? Certainly why does YOUR specific god exist, which, being a monotheistic religion (mostly), indicates that all other religions bar yours are also wrong. You have no evidence, no proof, just your gut instinct and what your religion tells you. Which is grand for you, you can believe whatever you like and no-one can prove you right or wrong, same as no-one can prove any of the other thousands of religions in the world right or wrong. Presumably you are all equally correct and equally incorrect since there's not a blind thing any religion can do to disprove another religion without also disproving their own. At least, not very logically. Grats, you all win and there's nothing more to discover, God(s) did it.

So now what? You're in the A&A forum, so I don't think you're going to convince anyone that something to do with immortal original beings etcetera when that is just one of a bunch of different religions vs what anyone who actually studies the topic can see, touch, study, etc from the world around us. Your original immortal beings, literalistic interpretation of Adam and Eve and something to do with dramatic physical changes when a metaphorical incident in a mythical timeline happened just doesn't add up to a bowl of cabbage confronted with empirical evidence, let alone a coherent argument.

... but the empirical evidence is pointing to an intelligence of Divine proportions behind it all ... and I have yet to hear a coherent argument for the spontaneous evolution of pondkind to mankind ... plenty of 'just so' stories that are underpinned by imagination ... and not logic.

Samaris wrote: »

Btw, I'm pretty live and let live about religions. Not going to knock a person's beliefs - but given Christianity is over there, I'm assuming that's what you're looking for in a forum dedicated to atheism and agnosticism!

The A & A seems to be as concerned about religion, as the Christianity Forum, all be it mostly in a mocking / negative sense (as measured by threads dedicated to religious topics) ... and this naturally concerns Christians ... especially when stuff is said that seems to be wrong.
What is said on the A & A is also of concern due to the increasingly vocal lobbying by atheists of our government on issues that directly impact on Christians and Christian Institutions ... using many of the arguments that are regularly aired on the A & A forum.
If you guys start bad-mouthing my God, I reserve the right of reply to your unfounded prognostications ... and ditto, if you make criticisms of my Faith.

J C wrote: »

... but the empirical evidence is pointing to an intelligence of Divine proportions behind it all ... and I have yet to hear a coherent argument for the spontaneous evolution of pondkind to mankind ... plenty of 'just so' stories that are underpinned by imagination ... and not logic.[

The A & A seems to be as concerned about religion, as the Christianity Forum, all be it mostly in a mocking / negative sense (as measured by threads dedicated to religious topics) ... and this naturally concerns Christians ... especially when stuff is said that seems to be wrong.
What is said on the A & A is also of concern due to the increasingly vocal lobbying by atheists of our government on issues that directly impact on Christians and Christian Institutions ... using many of the arguments that are regularly aired on the A & A forum.
If you guys start bad-mouthing my God, I reserve the right of reply to your unfounded prognostications ... and ditto, if you make criticisms of my Faith.

Pretty much like your "god did it" posts.