nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

why did god create cancer?

ch3rry

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Akrasia

PDN wrote: »

I think you're missing the point. No-one is comparing homosexuality to paedophilia. We are simply using the example of paedophilia to demonstrate the rather glaring loopholes in the "How can you say something is wrong if people are born that way?" argument.

That's not really the argument we're making. (although from a christian perspective, it would be very strange that god would cause people to be born with a preference for sex with children in the first place)

I have been consistent in saying that as long as the relationships are consensual between people who know what they're doing, then there is nothing wrong with the relationship

Fanny Cradock

Akrasia wrote: »

I have been consistent in saying that as long as the relationships are consensual between people who know what they're doing, then there is nothing wrong with the relationship

Really? Moving aside from the homosexuality issue for a moment, there are certainly relationships that would be considered to fall outside 'rational social rules'.

PDN

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Fair enough. We can discard the not-for-reproduction bit then. What I'm asking you is if you think that homosexuals should suppress their urges and if so, why?

For those who want to be part of the Christian Church, because of the teaching of the Bible. The Christian Church is a community of people who commit together to try to follow Jesus and to live by the teachings of the Bible. The Church also has commonly accepted principles of interpretation of Scripture (I'm including that statement to hopefully forestall trolls from quoting out of context passages from Leviticus).

Therefore I believe that homosexual acts are incompatible with membership of the Christian Church. I make no comment on those outside of the Church since homosexuality is hardly the biggest problem they have. I am not interested in judging non-Christians for not following Christian standards and practices.

Some people have urges to commit idolatry and want to bow down and pray to statues. I also believe that they should repress those urges if they want to be a part of the Christian Church. I also believe that Jews should repress their urges to eat bacon sandwiches if they want to be a part of the synagogue, and that people should repress their urges to eat any meat if they want to join the Vegetarian Society.

And I maintain that there's a big difference between being born with the desire that would require one defy certain specific and rational social rules in its fulfillment and the desire to have sex with a consenting man. You might as well compare homosexuality to psychopathy.

Once again, no one is comparing the two. Is that really so hard to understand?

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

For those who want to be part of the Christian Church, because of the teaching of the Bible. The Christian Church is a community of people who commit together to try to follow Jesus and to live by the teachings of the Bible. The Church also has commonly accepted principles of interpretation of Scripture (I'm including that statement to hopefully forestall trolls from quoting out of context passages from Leviticus).

Therefore I believe that homosexual acts are incompatible with membership of the Christian Church. I make no comment on those outside of the Church since homosexuality is hardly the biggest problem they have. I am not interested in judging non-Christians for not following Christian standards and practices.

Some people have urges to commit idolatry and want to bow down and pray to statues. I also believe that they should repress those urges if they want to be a part of the Christian Church. I also believe that Jews should repress their urges to eat bacon sandwiches if they want to be a part of the synagogue, and that people should repress their urges to eat any meat if they want to join the Vegetarian Society.

All fair enough. Though your moral axis is surely tied to your faith and thus you must surely consider homosexual acts to be wrong in an absolute sense? I'm curious though as to whether parts of the specific teachings of Christ (ie ignoring the old testament) prohibit homosexual acts?

PDN wrote: »

Once again, no one is comparing the two. Is that really so hard to understand?

What you were saying is that the morality of being born homosexual does not impact on the morality of acting upon that desire. That just because a person is born homosexual does not make their later homosexual actions right and that furthermore the presence of a social taboo and their defiance of it does not indicate a lack of agency and thus reduced moral responsibility. You illustrated this point further by stating that pedophiles (or more correctly child sex offenders) act in defiance of a social taboo and in accordance with a drive that may also be present from birth- and that this birth state and the obvious social stigma are not indicative of reduced agency, moral responsibility or rightness of the act itself. By illustrating your point in this manner it does rather appear that you are drawing comparison.

Please set me straight if I've missed the point.

Schuhart

AtomicHorror wrote: »

And I maintain that there's a big difference between being born with the desire that would require one defy certain specific and rational social rules in its fulfillment and the desire to have sex with a consenting man. You might as well compare homosexuality to psychopathy.

I hesitate to intervene, as this has been effectively covered already, but I feel that the point is that the difference is in those social rules.

Those social rules make perfect sense to me. But they move the goalposts away from the 'born with' idea. 'Born with' in fact becomes irrelevant,as we'll happily prohibit behaviour that conflicts with those social rules even if it is innate. Equally, we'll allow behaviour that is acquired, so long as it passes that consenting adults rule.

Which, incidently, presumably means we'll allow adults to volunteer to be eaten by others, regardless of whether cannabalism is something we're born with or simply a vagary.

MrPudding

PDN wrote: »

S

Is today National Troll Day?

Only on the Creation thread and only by JC.

MrP

AtomicHorror

Schuhart wrote: »

I hesitate to intervene, as this has been effectively covered already, but I feel that the point is that the difference is in those social rules.

There is also a difference in the extent of the innate desires plus a pathological element to the individuals psychology and in combination their impact on agency. It does not require extra-ordinary drive to defy mere social taboo. Perhaps it does not require extreme desire to defy laws with severe penalties. To defy broadly-accepted morals is another matter. That requires a detachment from some key element of those morals, such as empathy.

In our moral assessment of homosexuality at birth, it is worth noting that no such extreme drives or psychopathology exist. This has implications for how we morally assess their actions. They are acting in accordance with an innate nature that is morally benign and very, very different to the innate nature of a sex offender.

Schuhart

AtomicHorror wrote: »

There is also a difference in the extent of the innate desires plus a pathological element to the individuals psychology and in combination their impact on agency. It does not require extra-ordinary drive to defy mere social taboo. Perhaps it does not require extreme desire to defy laws with severe penalties. To defy broadly-accepted morals is another matter. That requires a detachment from some key element of those morals, such as empathy.

In our moral assessment of homosexuality at birth, it is worth noting that no such extreme drives or psychopathology exist. This has implications for how we morally assess their actions. They are acting in accordance with an innate nature that is morally benign and very, very different to the innate nature of a sex offender.

I'm actually not clear what this is supposed to mean, or what the distinction is between morality and taboo.

You'll understand, I'm not suggesting I see any particular moral issue at stake as regards homosexuality. Its just that our conception of morality being something that is ultimately about protection of folk unable to make their own decisions is simply our conception. Others might well have a conception that includes all kinds of things that adult, while consenting, should be protected from. I actually don't see any objective basis that gives our version of morality some kind of status in the situation that can be used to sort between innate natures.

Does this mean I can envisage a society where rape and child abuse were permitted? Given we know of societies that permitted slavery, down to quite recent times, I expect I can.

Fanny Cradock

Schuhart wrote: »

Does this mean I can envisage a society where rape and child abuse were permitted? Given we know of societies that permitted slavery, down to quite recent times, I expect I can.

I don't think you would have to envisage such a society. From the Western perspective - certainly our legal perspective - the worryingly low age limits for marriage in parts of Africa, for example, could be considered just such a society. Of course marriage doesn't necessarily mean that consummation will immediately follow, but it's not a leap into impossibility to think otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age#Africa

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Well you have introduced the word "natural", I'm not sure what context you are using that word. Everything that happens to our bodies is natural unless one introduces a supernatural element.

Ok, let me clarify. Is there a Normal* sexuality, so as to say, anything that is not this particular sexuality is ab-normal? If there is no Normal sexuality, then sexual normality must be viewed as individual thus all sexuality is normal.

*A sexuallity you recognise as the standard human sexuality.

On the other hand I'm not a believer in the way nature intended line of thought, so if that is what you mean by nature I would have to step out of that discussion.

Normal is the better word. See above.

Not sure. If a persons paedophilia is related to serious mental trauma then I would imagine that psycho-therapy could help for some people

But if it wasn't from a trauma, you'd still encourage to seek help to change their sexuality?

Er .. ok

I'm only saying that I've heard this mentioned by people before. I don't know the sources, or the truth therein. That is why I don't just accept it as true. I don't know if it is 'often' the case. Maybe it is. I wouldn't just agree with it based on my current knowledge thats all.

I think what you are asking is if paedophilia is the result of biological, genetic, settings determined at conception in a person, is it psychologically sound to be a paedophilia. I would imagine yes, excluding the social issues that come with being a paedophile and the issues with repressed sexual urges that apply across the board.

As I said earlier, you are being consistant. So fair enough. As I said, if you don't think that there is a normal sexuality, then all sexuality must be normal.

No, for the trauma the person has suffered due to abuse. The attraction to children stems for that, or at least does in the cases where this applies.

Indeed, in these cases, their mental state is questionable and these cases are not included in my question.

Think of it this way. A some what common result of post traumatic stress syndrome is night terrors or night violence, where a person may, still asleep, have the sensation of being under attack and lash out around them. This can seriously injure anyone in the bed with them, such as a husband or wife.

Now you could say that this person should get help to stop them hitting their wife. But really they should get help to over come the PTS syndrome, to stop the night terrors, and hitting the fudge out of your wife comes with that.

The same applies in my view to those who are padeophiles due to childhood abuse.

I agree. Get to the root of the problem.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok, let me clarify. Is there a Normal* sexuality, so as to say, anything that is not this particular sexuality is ab-normal? If there is no Normal sexuality, then sexual normality must be viewed as individual thus all sexuality is normal.

*A sexuallity you recognise as the standard human sexuality.

Not really. At least not external to what humans have decided this week is the traits of sexuality to focus on as being "normal".

Normal human sexuality is really a human classification, and as such changes depending on the cultural norms of the society.

JimiTime wrote: »

But if it wasn't from a trauma, you'd still encourage to seek help to change their sexuality?

I wouldn't tell anyone to seek help to change their sexuality. That is missing the point of my original comment.

I think what you are asking is is it acceptable for someone to seek help to alter their sexuality if their sexuality is considered cultural or socially inappropriate or harmful.

That is a difficult question to answer in a general terms. You have to first look if it is actually possible to change. One hears a lot of horror stories about people being put through behavior modification to "help" them not be homosexual any more. Not only does this seem to not work, but it also seems to be a form of mental abuse in of itself. So it isn't really a case that I'm opposed to homosexuals changing sexuality. If this was possible and safe I would have no strong objections to it (I would object to society putting pressure on homosexuals to change, see below). But it seems to me that the "curse is worse than the disease" in this case.

Secondly you have to look at the pressure being put on the person. The pressure put on homosexuals, both from society norms and religion, is unfair in my opinion. Homosexuals don't harm anyone in their actions. I would much prefer the removal of this social pressure, than for homosexuals to be rushing out to change themselves into heterosexuals, even if that were possible which there is little evidence it is.

On the other hand a pedophiles can never have a sexual encounter with a child because there is overwhelming evidence that such an encounter is very damaging to the child. So if a pedophile could receive help in not having pedophile attraction to children I can see why that would be better for them than going through life repressing all sexual encounters. But again, if the pedophilia is not a result of trauma that is treatable, I would question if this is even possible. You then have to weigh up the damage that will be done to the pedophile by programs designed to repress sexuality, against damage done if they do have a sexual encounter. Unfortunately for the pedophile it is a bit of a clear case in favour of protecting the child. One mustn't forget though the suffering of the pedophile. He hasn't a choice, he must not have sexual encounters, but I don't think rushing to condemn a pedophile, as society so often does, who is repressing his sexuality is helpful. They need help not condemnation.

That is not really a definitive answers on my part, but I hope you see that it is a very complicated subject

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm only saying that I've heard this mentioned by people before. I don't know the sources, or the truth therein. That is why I don't just accept it as true. I don't know if it is 'often' the case. Maybe it is. I wouldn't just agree with it based on my current knowledge thats all.

Fair enough. Do you have an objection to the idea or is it just that you don't want to come down on one side without more evidence?

JimiTime wrote: »

As I said, if you don't think that there is a normal sexuality, then all sexuality must be normal.

Something like that, though I wouldn't use the term "normal" to describe anyone's sexuality. I knew a guy in college who liked to ejaculate on women's knees (I found this little bit of wonderful information out when my flat mate decided to inform us all about her previous nights sexploits over breakfast - not an image you want while eating yogurt I must say!). Was he "normal"? Certainly I imagine he was in the minority of human beings, but it worked for him and my flat mate didn't seem to mind to much. People may classify him as "normal" because he liked doing this over women, and thus he falls under "heterosexual", but there is little biological purpose in doing this. So one has to ask how important the heterosexual/homosexual classification is, or what normal even means in relation to sexuality.

JimiTime wrote: »

Indeed, in these cases, their mental state is questionable and these cases are not included in my question.

I think for cases where the pedophilia does not stem from a treatable cause the pedophile must suppress their sexuality, and we must help that while recognize that this will harm them.

The recognizing the harm bit is important. This is a last resort. Suppressing human sexuality is harmful. In the case of pedophilia it is necessary because children cannot be harmed.

JimiTime wrote: »

I agree. Get to the root of the problem.

Not just for the children, but for them as well.

all the stars

so just opened this thread on page 5..
How did it go from creation of cancer to paedophilia and such? slightly off topic me thinks..

Zombrex

all the stars wrote: »

so just opened this thread on page 5..
How did it go from creation of cancer to paedophilia and such? slightly off topic me thinks..

Read the original post. Cancer was just one thing mentioned. The overall topic of the thread is really the difference between what God did and what we did.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Fair enough. Do you have an objection to the idea or is it just that you don't want to come down on one side without more evidence?

The latter. I have little doubt that there are abusers who were abused themselves, I just don't have enough info to stand by the claim that this is 'often' the case. As i said, I'm not objecting to it, just reserving judgement until I see the evidence.

failsafe

Looking at where this thread has gone since the original question, the convoluted mental gymnastics that people have been employing in attempting to answer the question of "why did God create cancer" just astounds me.

Having been a Catholic/Christian for most of my life, the more I think about this God I used to worship the more I get repulsed. The notion that these things are "punishment" for original sin really makes me dislike this god character. In real life, for example, I wouldn't befriend someone who hates an ordinary English person for the occupation of Ireland that their ancestors carried out.

The other argument (which is slightly more logical) that these are inherited consequences of the original 'Fall' still invokes the same feelings in me that this god fellow is a bit of a vindictive bully. The argument seems to get him off scott-free at first... until you factor in that he is "all knowing" etc. Surely this God that cast Adam from paradise would know that these "consequences" would arise? This makes cancer/aids etc a slightly more indirect punishment, but a punishment none the less.

And when you apply this lofty theory to real life, it becomes even more horrific. What this implies is that, when a 2 year old African child dies of Aids, or is born with no natural immunity to malaria (as all children are), or when any child is born with the ability to develop leukaemia (again, as all children are) - that their suffering is because a tribe of 20,000 people a couple of millennia ago rejected God? If this was the action of a modern human, he might think something like this - Stalinist Russia was a godless state... so young children being born in Chernobyl have immense suffering as a punishment/consequence of a decision I made to cause the "fall" of the Soviet people. I knew their suffering would be a consequens of my actions, I have the ability to stop them suffering, but I don't. That is not a person that any sane poster here would admire (let alone worship!!)

This brings me back to the awe that I feel when I look at these complex arguements to justify how someone who is supposed to be good and all powerfull could be exonerated from blame for all these bad things. I don't know why a reasonable intelligent person (as all the posters in this topic seem to be) would go to these lengths to make this square-shaped argument (the bible stories) fit into a circle-shaped hole (the facts of the bad things in the modern world) when there is a perfectly good circle-shaped (:p) argument to hand!

In fact (to continue the metaphor), there are so many good (circle-shaped!) answers to the original questions that are so much easier on the mind, so much more academically satisfactory, and just so much more "common-sense"!!
Some examples:
1. The bible is wrong
2. The bible is a good book, but written by many people over many years, some of it is right but this bit is wrong.
3. God doesn't exist!
4. God exists, but he/she/it isn't a personal God. Maybe he/she/it light the match at the big bang, but doesn't break the laws of physics and intervene with humans

When I began asking all those questions that the OP did to myself, the 4 answers above (and I toyed with each of them and variations of them in the past) seemed so much more logical and reasonable, and therefore so much more satisfying to me than my previous attempts to mash truths that were obvious to me (i.e. bad things happen) with a 2,000+ yr old framework of thoughts and proposed notions that the bible told me were true. Hopefully (if you managed to read all that without falling asleep

) it might have gone some way to answering the questions for you.

JimiTime

failsafe wrote: »

Looking at where this thread has gone since the original question, the convoluted mental gymnastics that people have been employing in attempting to answer the question of "why did God create cancer" just astounds me.

Having been a Catholic/Christian for most of my life, the more I think about this God I used to worship the more I get repulsed. The notion that these things are "punishment" for original sin really makes me dislike this god character. In real life, for example, I wouldn't befriend someone who hates an ordinary English person for the occupation of Ireland that their ancestors carried out.

The other argument (which is slightly more logical) that these are inherited consequences of the original 'Fall' still invokes the same feelings in me that this god fellow is a bit of a vindictive bully. The argument seems to get him off scott-free at first... until you factor in that he is "all knowing" etc. Surely this God that cast Adam from paradise would know that these "consequences" would arise? This makes cancer/aids etc a slightly more indirect punishment, but a punishment none the less.

And when you apply this lofty theory to real life, it becomes even more horrific. What this implies is that, when a 2 year old African child dies of Aids, or is born with no natural immunity to malaria (as all children are), or when any child is born with the ability to develop leukaemia (again, as all children are) - that their suffering is because a tribe of 20,000 people a couple of millennia ago rejected God? If this was the action of a modern human, he might think something like this - Stalinist Russia was a godless state... so young children being born in Chernobyl have immense suffering as a punishment/consequence of a decision I made to cause the "fall" of the Soviet people. I knew their suffering would be a consequens of my actions, I have the ability to stop them suffering, but I don't. That is not a person that any sane poster here would admire (let alone worship!!)

This brings me back to the awe that I feel when I look at these complex arguements to justify how someone who is supposed to be good and all powerfull could be exonerated from blame for all these bad things. I don't know why a reasonable intelligent person (as all the posters in this topic seem to be) would go to these lengths to make this square-shaped argument (the bible stories) fit into a circle-shaped hole (the facts of the bad things in the modern world) when there is a perfectly good circle-shaped (:p) argument to hand!

In fact (to continue the metaphor), there are so many good (circle-shaped!) answers to the original questions that are so much easier on the mind, so much more academically satisfactory, and just so much more "common-sense"!!
Some examples:
1. The bible is wrong
2. The bible is a good book, but written by many people over many years, some of it is right but this bit is wrong.
3. God doesn't exist!
4. God exists, but he/she/it isn't a personal God. Maybe he/she/it light the match at the big bang, but doesn't break the laws of physics and intervene with humans

When I began asking all those questions that the OP did to myself, the 4 answers above (and I toyed with each of them and variations of them in the past) seemed so much more logical and reasonable, and therefore so much more satisfying to me than my previous attempts to mash truths that were obvious to me (i.e. bad things happen) with a 2,000+ yr old framework of thoughts and proposed notions that the bible told me were true. Hopefully (if you managed to read all that without falling asleep ) it might have gone some way to answering the questions for you.

Your posting above expresses an opinion, but that is all. You came to conclusions, and you believe them to be reasonable. Others asked more questions, different questions etc etc. Its not a matter of sanity. You are free to conclude my lord is a bully, and be repulsed. We are free to conclude such things. We are also free to disagree with your opinion, and yet still be sane.

siobhan.murphy

God plays horrible tricks.like ur best friend uesd to when u were 5
just not fair,to piss people off when u have the power not to.

JimiTime

siobhan.murphy wrote: »

God plays horrible tricks.like ur best friend uesd to when u were 5
just not fair,to piss people off when u have the power not to.

How enlightening.

EmmetF

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?

F*** that s***. So if I mutate and create my own strain of the AIDS virus for world domination, God gets credit? Are you f***ing s****ing me?
He had nothing to do with it, my parents should be given more credit than god, at least they were the ones who forced me to live in a cage and invoked all this rage. Surely God didn't have anything to do with it?

failsafe

JimiTime wrote: »

Your posting above expresses an opinion, but that is all. You came to conclusions, and you believe them to be reasonable. Others asked more questions, different questions etc etc. Its not a matter of sanity. You are free to conclude my lord is a bully, and be repulsed. We are free to conclude such things. We are also free to disagree with your opinion, and yet still be sane.

I thought that was the point of a discussion/debate!

And sorry if I've offended you, that wasn't my aim, I only used sane when I was talking about befriending a real person with these characteristics.

So would you then care to elaborate on your disagreements? I think that what I said is slightly stronger than just a conclusion, or at least in the sense that your using it (or maybe I mean that your belief is slightly less than a conclusion - sorry again if that's offensive, but it's the only way I can think to phrase it!). By this I mean that your opinion is formed by starting with a belief (faith) that the bible is the true word of God, then you gather the facts (i.e. look at the world around you) and try to draw conclusions that gel with the truths of the bible (the concept of original sin etc.). I on the other hand have no such restraint, I can view the world with an open mind (again, no offence!) gather all the facts, and draw a rational conclusion based purely on verifiable evidence (i.e. that which requires no belief)

When you take all the facts into account, there are a myriad of possible conclusions that one could draw for "why bad things happen". You are confined to only thinking about a small subset of those possible conclusions (it's punishment/it's consequence) whereas I am free to deduce the most scientifically rational conclusion to explain the facts.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Your posting above expresses an opinion, but that is all.

As opposed to what?

JimiTime

failsafe wrote: »

I thought that was the point of a discussion/debate!

Indeed. I merely stated that while you are entitled to hold that opinion, it doesn't mean that those who don't follow your reasoning lack sanity.

And sorry if I've offended you, that wasn't my aim, I only used sane when I was talking about befriending a real person with these characteristics.

No offence taken. But to follow up on this, you don't feel that someone who admires and worships God lacks sanity?

So would you then care to elaborate on your disagreements? I think that what I said is slightly stronger than just a conclusion, or at least in the sense that your using it (or maybe I mean that your belief is slightly less than a conclusion - sorry again if that's offensive, but it's the only way I can think to phrase it!). By this I mean that your opinion is formed by starting with a belief (faith) that the bible is the true word of God, then you gather the facts (i.e. look at the world around you) and try to draw conclusions that gel with the truths of the bible (the concept of original sin etc.). I on the other hand have no such restraint, I can view the world with an open mind (again, no offence!) gather all the facts, and draw a rational conclusion based purely on verifiable evidence (i.e. that which requires no belief)

Firstly, I'm not offended by what you say, so no need to worry. I'm a big boy:)

You assume, because I am a Christian, I believe certain things, and I started from a point of belief. Indeed, it would make it very easy if all Christians were the same, but alas thats not the case. you may have large chunks the same, but we are not. I don't believe the bible is the word of God. I believe it contains words of God, but I believe 'The Word of God' is Jesus' title. I believe the bible was written in the Spirit of God, by men. I.E. Men who had Gods spirit, calling it 'The word of God' is going too far.

Really, this is my starting premise. We 'cannot' be here without a creator. Although there are lots of folk who say we can, I find this position foolish. Such a position I cannot fathom and have yet to see or hear any satisfactory proposal for such a position. From this position, which I would consider informed, I sought out evidence of personality for this creator. I Love nature, the smell of a pine forest, the beauty of a Sunflower. A Sunrise. the taste of an apple. The great pleasure I get from eating and drinking. Reciprocated love. The ability to have fun, to laugh. to think, the list goes on and on. So I thought that this creator must want us to be happy. However, I also thought of the pain of seeing a loved one die. The unnatural sight of seeing a 5 year old being lowered into a pit to be buried after being ravaged by cancer again the list goes on. So how could this be? I see all the hallmarks of a loving God, who wants us top be happy, then think, 'but hang on, how can such suffering occur?'. I think that this is a point where many conclude. They either say, 'God musn't exist, or if he does he's not loving or care about us'. I continued to probe. I couldn't ignore the fact that although there was such suffering in the world, there was also such joy and beauty, and feelings of love. Was there an explaination? Yes. I found the explainations offered by Christ and the prophets cross this divide. Did it have 'all' the answers? No. It had enough 'for me' to put faith in Christ though. I'm still learning, and still asking questions though.

When you take all the facts into account, there are a myriad of possible conclusions that one could draw for "why bad things happen". You are confined to only thinking about a small subset of those possible conclusions (it's punishment/it's consequence) whereas I am free to deduce the most scientifically rational conclusion to explain the facts.

Indeed you are, and so am I. However, just because I reach a different conclusion, doesn't mean I'm closed minded. It may take alot more to convince me, but my mind is open. You may think I'm closed minded, but that doesn't really bother me.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

it doesn't mean that those who don't follow your reasoning lack sanity.

In your opinion

JimiTime wrote: »

Really, this is my starting premise. We 'cannot' be here without a creator. Although there are lots of folk who say we can, I find this position foolish. Such a position I cannot fathom and have yet to see or hear any satisfactory proposal for such a position.

What is your satisfactory proposal for the assertion "we cannot be here without a creator"

How could you possibly come to such a conclusion?

Akrasia

Wicknight wrote: »

In your opinion

What is your satisfactory proposal for the assertion "we cannot be here without a creator"

How could you possibly come to such a conclusion?

I don't think a creator is a conclusion at all. It's just an arbitrary point at which you stop asking any more questions.

'We needed a higher power to create us, that higher power was god"
Who created god?
"God didn't need a creator"
"How do you know?"
"because I have faith"
"Why do you have faith in an uncreated god but not faith in an uncreated universe"
"....."

Zombrex

Akrasia wrote: »

I don't think a creator is a conclusion at all. It's just an arbitrary point at which you stop asking any more questions.

'We needed a higher power to create us, that higher power was god"
Who created god?
"God didn't need a creator"
"How do you know?"
"because I have faith"
"Why do you have faith in an uncreated god but not faith in an uncreated universe"
"....."

I agree entirely, though the idea that their must be a god certainly explains a lot of the posts like Jimi's.

It becomes not an issue if there is a god, but simply a question of which god you pick to believe is "God" (and out of the major religions, particular in the west, that limits the choice even more as few are exposed in depth to a large range of gods, or their followers)

If one narrows down their vision to only a small set possibilities, to what they will only regard as being in the realm of possible things, then it isn't surprising they will reach the conclusion that something in that set is likely.

Ironically I see this a being quite closed minded, rather than open minded as Jimi claims. But then he doesn't care :pac:

These posts tie into a discussion on the atheist forum about "scientific thinking" (slightly inaccurate term, that I personally wouldn't have used, but its the one people ran with) explaining why it is so important to remove just these types of conclusions, such as "We 'cannot' be here without a creator" from proper study of the universe.

TravelJunkie

ch3rry wrote: »

Can ye not see, as 21st century, smart, human beings, that christianity is just a little silly?

".

So why'd you post here then?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

What is your satisfactory proposal for the assertion "we cannot be here without a creator"

How could you possibly come to such a conclusion?

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

wicknight wrote:

Ironically I see this a being quite closed minded, rather than open minded as Jimi claims. But then he doesn't care

Indeed i don't.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Quite simply put, its the only answer that I can fathom.

And ... ?

JimiTime wrote: »

Whatever reasonings and arguements are out there, to believe that we are not the work of a designer is quite simply, foolish, IMO.

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?

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

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.

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

JimiTime wrote: »

Until such an alternative is offered, I'm not going to assume that all the evidence of design I see, happened randomly.

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.

JimiTime wrote: »

If I went to Jupiter and found a Car, I'd be the same. I'd see the effect of a cause.

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

Do you have another universe that you know was built by a god that you are comparing this one too so you can say "Ah yes,very similar, this one must also have been built"?

JimiTime wrote: »

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

Well you guys do do that, but that doesn't quite apply here.

JimiTime wrote: »

Also things like 'You can't answer who made God'. Like its this big conspiracy.

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).

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.

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.

JimiTime wrote: »

I suppose you can believe it is, thats your perogative, doesn't make it convincing to me though.

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?

rockbeer

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.

Forgive me, but your inability to conceive of something doesn't make it impossible. In former times people couldn't conceive of the earth moving around the sun but that didn't stop it being true. If people weren't willing/able to move beyond the treacherous limits of their senses, knowledge would have never increased at all.

But even if we accept for the sake of argument that there has to be a creator, it's still a colossal leap from there to the christian god of the bible, for which there is zero evidence other than a book written by people a long long time ago.

Given that you claim to be open minded, why do you feel the need to attach your belief to the christian god? How do you know that 'god' isn't actually represented by some other religion you've never heard of? Or that 'god' isn't a creator-being or entity about which we know nothing at all?

Assume for a minute that all human attempts to describe 'god' are limited by our ignorance...

That at least would allow you not to have to indulge in the kind of arbitrary mental gymnastics described so well by failsafe.

AtomicHorror

TravelJunkie wrote: »

So why'd you post here then?

Some atheists come here because they're the converting type (Christians can relate to that). Others are here to defend science or philosophy against some of the misconceptions present here (mostly pushed by a fundamentalist minority). I, an agnostic, am here for the blood of Christ (ie free booze).