why did god create cancer?

Sapien wrote: »

No, a Christian's a Christian. You didn't define it any more rigorously when claiming that Christian societies are better for gay people than non-Christian ones, so that's what I'm working with.

Fair enough. However, I still think that you will find that tolerance towards homosexuals is, on average, much better in countries with a long exposure to Christian values than in those without such exposure. Of course there are exceptions - but the overall pattern is clear. Meanwhile, would you like to point out one officially atheist regime that has not been homophobic?

How convenient. So the homophobia-diminishing property of Christianity is counteracted by this folk tale. It must be negligible to begin with.

So, history that doesn't fit in with your worldview becomes a folk-tale? This feels like the time I foolishly tried to have a conversation with some Turks about the Armenian genocide. If you want you can read the names of those who were mutilated, castrated and executed in this 'folk tale' http://www.buganda.com/martyrs.htm

I was actually naive enough to think that a little historical context might help us to mutual understanding instead of demonising each other. Evidently I was wrong.

Try Poland then. Overwhelmingly Christian, deeply and institutionally homophobic. No sodomising pagan kings, as far as I remember from my history. I don't have to try very hard, you see, because your method of demonstrating that Christian societies were less homophobic was to point to two non-Christian, homophobic societies. Poland is hugely Christian, and worse than either of your examples.

Yes, Poland, a deeply Catholic country. You could also have pointed to Russia, or Romania, or Bulgaria, or Ukraine, or Lithuania, or Latvia, or Belorussia - countries with a strong Orthodox or Catholic tradition. Now, I wonder what those countries have in common? (Hint: Try thinking about a generation of officially atheist and homophobic rule under the Soviet Union).

Interesting how now, after committing one yourself, you now have become aware of the dangers of cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies.

Where, now, is your contention that homophobia is less of a problem in Christian societies? Do you still feel like pursuing that? And will you attempt to argue that Christianity is the cause of this tolerance? As opposed to low levels of marijuana usage.

Yes, I think it is perfectly valid to see a general pattern in societies worldwide. If marijuana use can be shown to be generally more prevalent in Christian societies than non-Christian societies then, yes, I think it would be valid to assert a connection. To do so on the basis of one or two exceptions would, of course, be silly. For every Jamaica there is also a Cuba (hardly a bastion of Christianity).

You and your Christian pals may be lovely, super-non-violent people, but the religion that merely convinces you that in having sex with my partner I damn myself to hell, convinces the footballers to beat up queers late at night, the solicitors and politicians to resist equality law reform, the accountant to drive his son to suicide. We're not arguing about the effects of your precious, refined and nuanced take on Christianity. We're arguing about the effects of Christianity as it exists in the big, bad world.

And if there were no Christian churches then football supporters or drunken stag-nighters would no longer be homophobic and would gladly affirm your lifestyle? In your dreams!

You argue that a society that is Christian will be less homophobic. That is rubbish. I assume you mean to imply that Christianity causes these societies to be less homophobic. That is not only wrong, it is quite the wrong way around.

Actually that is not what I'm arguing. I think a Christian society would be an awful thing, because it causes people who are not really Christians to use Christianity in a nationalistic sense. I, as a Christian and a secularist, think Ireland is a much healthier society than in the days when it was dominated by the Church. What I am arguing is that societies with a long exposure to Christian values tend to be more tolerant in general. This is reflected by the increased tolerance of minorities - be they homosexuals, atheists or Jehovah's Witnesses, and by the earlier dates for abolition of slavery etc. when compared to other societies. Such tolerance is generally more pronounced in those countries where a plurality of churches have developed (Scandinavia, UK, USA etc) rather than where theological monopolies were enforced (Orthodox Serbia or Russia, Catholic Poland etc).

The difference is the existence of homosexuals, PDN.

Even if you think the world revolves around you, surely you are aware that all the other people I mentioned also exist. People who commit heterosexual sin exist. Idolators exist. People who eat bacon sandwiches exist.

You don't get to define what homophobia is. We will not accept from you such faux-naif as would require you to argue that fear, qua phobia is necessarily a part of homophobia, or indeed hate, per se. Put simply - yours is a club. Your club says that if you're a practising homosexual, you can't join. That's homophobic. The damage your club does to the lives of gay people in the world at large - this you can disavow all you like - it's quite beside the point.

And you don't get to define what homophobia is either. Of course you can, like Humpty Dumpty, choose to make words mean whatever you like - but for most of us homophobia is about hate and fear (the 'phobia' bit is a little clue). It will be interesting if we allow you to redefine other words in a similar way.
Arachnophobe - Someone who doesn't think carrying spiders down his trousers is a good idea, but has no fear whatsoever of spiders.
Claustrophobe - Someone who doesn't want to live in an enclosed space, but has no fear of such enclosed spaces.

There are lots of people who can't join my club. You can't join my club if you believe Mohammed is God's only prophet. You can't join my club if you drink to excess. You can't join my club if you are a racist. You can't join my club if you are sleeping with your girlfriend outside of marriage. You can't join my club if you like praying to statues of Krishna. You can't join my club if you are a Freemason or a member of the Orange Order. I guess that means I'm full of hatred and fear towards those who do all that stuff as well? How mean of me!

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

Of course not, because I am not fat-headed or bigoted enough to accuse atheists of being homophobic per se. Therefore I agree with you that Sapien would be as safe on the atheist train as he would on the Christian train, and vice versa.

Glad to hear it. As Sapien said: that would be stupid

pwd

Either:

-god is an evil sadistic entity that enjoys inflicting suffering indiscriminately

or

-there is no god.

I prefer the latter possibilty and take comfort in it.

PDN wrote: »

Of course not, because I am not fat-headed or bigoted enough to accuse atheists of being homophobic per se.

Well, that would just be stupid.

iUseVi wrote: »

Nice word game. Nothing else. Replace d) with:

d) The other 49 passengers are atheists on their way home from a debate.

Feel threatened?

Indeed. The important thing about PDN's d) group is not that they are Christians. If it were, he would just have said that: "The other 49 passengers are devout Christians". But, of course, they're not just devout Christians. They're devout Christians who attend a study group. In fact, they're more than that - they're PDN and his friends.

Firstly, a train full of devout Christians could very well be a terrifying prospect, and could certainly place my life in danger in this scenario. Secondly, any group of people coming back from a study group, of whatever kind, would be unlikely to turn suddenly murderous. A physics seminar, a history lecture, a poetry reading. Anything, really, but a public reading of Mein Kampf or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Christianity plus meek intellectual equals PDN - no danger to gays anywhere (except in the ways he is). Christianity plus anyone with a violent temperament equals someone with a violent temperament and a slightly increased tendency to be violent towards queers.

iUseVi wrote: »

Nice word game. Nothing else. Replace d) with:

d) The other 49 passengers are atheists on their way home from a debate.

Feel threatened?

Of course not, because I am not fat-headed or bigoted enough to accuse atheists of being homophobic per se. Therefore I agree with you that Sapien would be as safe on the atheist train as he would on the Christian train, and vice versa.

PDN wrote: »

I wonder where you get the 85% Christian figure for Uganda?

Wikipedia.

PDN wrote: »

Is this that game where, when we want to stress a country's bad points, we lump everyone that has ever darkened the door of the Church or been baptised as 'Christian', but, if we want to stress a country's good points, then we define Christian much more narrowly?

No, a Christian's a Christian. You didn't define it any more rigorously when claiming that Christian societies are better for gay people than non-Christian ones, so that's what I'm working with.

PDN wrote: »

Actually, Uganda is one of the few countries where the Church is homophobic (in the word's literal sense). This is because one of the seminal events in the history of Ugandan Christianity involves early converts who were martyred because they refused to allow themselves to be sodomised by a king. That is no excuse in my book, for Christians should forgive those who persecute them and not to be afraid, but it does set their attitudes in a historical context.

How convenient. So the homophobia-diminishing property of Christianity is counteracted by this folk tale. It must be negligible to begin with.

Try Poland then. Overwhelmingly Christian, deeply and institutionally homophobic. No sodomising pagan kings, as far as I remember from my history. I don't have to try very hard, you see, because your method of demonstrating that Christian societies were less homophobic was to point to two non-Christian, homophobic societies. Poland is hugely Christian, and worse than either of your examples.

PDN wrote: »

Your reference to Jamaica is interesting. Jamaica also has one of the highest rates of marijuana usage in the world. Is this the fault of Christianity too?

Interesting how now, after committing one yourself, you now have become aware of the dangers of cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies.

Where, now, is your contention that homophobia is less of a problem in Christian societies? Do you still feel like pursuing that? And will you attempt to argue that Christianity is the cause of this tolerance? As opposed to low levels of marijuana usage.

PDN wrote: »

If I remember correctly, Sapien, you once mentioned on another thread that you are a part of Dublin's gay scene. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). Put yourself in the following scenario:

You are in a train carriage with fifty other males. One of these guys is an enemy who wishes you harm. The other 49 are strangers you have never met before. Suddenly your enemy, hoping to provoke a hate crime, points to you and loudly outs you as a homosexual. The key to what happens next, of course, will depend on how homophobic the other 49 guys in that railway carriage prove to be. Which of the following would you prefer in order to protect you from harm?
a) The train is in the stridently non-Christian regime of China and the 49 other passengers are off-duty soldiers in the Red Army?
b) The train is ferrying football supporters home from a football match?
c) The other 49 occupants of the train carriage are solicitors, accountants etc. all on their way home from a stag party?
d) The other 49 passengers are devout Christians on their way home from a Bible Study?

a) clearly. I have a thing for uniforms.

What does it say that you have to invent such a remote and improbable scenario to arrive at an example of Christianity being good for gay people. Bookish scholars may be your experience of Christianity, PDN, but in reality b) and c) are the most likely candidates for a public encounter with a Christian.

You and your Christian pals may be lovely, super-non-violent people, but the religion that merely convinces you that in having sex with my partner I damn myself to hell, convinces the footballers to beat up queers late at night, the solicitors and politicians to resist equality law reform, the accountant to drive his son to suicide. We're not arguing about the effects of your precious, refined and nuanced take on Christianity. We're arguing about the effects of Christianity as it exists in the big, bad world.

You argue that a society that is Christian will be less homophobic. That is rubbish. I assume you mean to imply that Christianity causes these societies to be less homophobic. That is not only wrong, it is quite the wrong way around.

PDN wrote: »

People like Ratzinger et al also say that heterosexual relationships, 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.

The difference is the existence of homosexuals, PDN.

PDN wrote: »

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.

Yes they do. Of course they do. Citing Christian morals, Christians attempt to prevent people from practising homosexuality. They try to prevent the passing of laws that allow people to express their homosexuality. They inculcate youth with the belief that homosexuality is evil, driving many into denial, psychological ill-health, suicide, and doomed lives based on feigned heterosexuality.

You don't get to define what homophobia is. We will not accept from you such faux-naif as would require you to argue that fear, qua phobia is necessarily a part of homophobia, or indeed hate, per se. Put simply - yours is a club. Your club says that if you're a practising homosexual, you can't join. That's homophobic. The damage your club does to the lives of gay people in the world at large - this you can disavow all you like - it's quite beside the point.

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

Which of the following would you prefer in order to protect you from harm?
a) The train is in the stridently non-Christian regime of China and the 49 other passengers are off-duty soldiers in the Red Army?
b) The train is ferrying football supporters home from a football match?
c) The other 49 occupants of the train carriage are solicitors, accountants etc. all on their way home from a stag party?
d) The other 49 passengers are devout Christians on their way home from a Bible Study?[/B]

Nice word game. Nothing else. Replace d) with:

d) The other 49 passengers are atheists on their way home from a debate.

Feel threatened?

PDN wrote: »

However, no-one accuses them of being fornicatorphobes or idolatorphobes.

I think you find they do. I've long put forward the idea that something like the Christian preoccupation with forbidding sexual relations outside of the strict framework of the religion is down to a mixtures of emotions, such as fear, towards of sex.

And I seem to remember that not going down to well

Sapien wrote: »

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.

I wonder where you get the 85% Christian figure for Uganda? Is this that game where, when we want to stress a country's bad points, we lump everyone that has ever darkened the door of the Church or been baptised as 'Christian', but, if we want to stress a country's good points, then we define Christian much more narrowly?

Actually, Uganda is one of the few countries where the Church is homophobic (in the word's literal sense). This is because one of the seminal events in the history of Ugandan Christianity involves early converts who were martyred because they refused to allow themselves to be sodomised by a king. That is no excuse in my book, for Christians should forgive those who persecute them and not to be afraid, but it does set their attitudes in a historical context.

Of course you will find Christians who are homophobic, just as you can find Christians who cheat on their VAT, who commit fornication, and share other traits with the wider society. I have met Christians who were most definitely homophobic - but in every case they were homophobic before their conversion to Christianity.

Your reference to Jamaica is interesting. Jamaica also has one of the highest rates of marijuana usage in the world. Is this the fault of Christianity too?

If I remember correctly, Sapien, you once mentioned on another thread that you are a part of Dublin's gay scene. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). Put yourself in the following scenario:

You are in a train carriage with fifty other males. One of these guys is an enemy who wishes you harm. The other 49 are strangers you have never met before. Suddenly your enemy, hoping to provoke a hate crime, points to you and loudly outs you as a homosexual. The key to what happens next, of course, will depend on how homophobic the other 49 guys in that railway carriage prove to be. Which of the following would you prefer in order to protect you from harm?
a) The train is in the stridently non-Christian regime of China and the 49 other passengers are off-duty soldiers in the Red Army?
b) The train is ferrying football supporters home from a football match?
c) The other 49 occupants of the train carriage are solicitors, accountants etc. all on their way home from a stag party?
d) The other 49 passengers are devout Christians on their way home from a Bible Study?

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?

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 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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

Did you actually read my reply to your posts?

Yes.

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?

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)