• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheists - A Question...

nPeace

Veteran Member
Ok, maybe not the best choice to use them as a reference then, just saying :D


This is a classic website trying to fool people with nonsense, meaning that they present 50% of the truth and leave everything out that they don't agree with. It is not uncommon, because they have an agenda.


No I don't? If that was what you meant, why would you link to a site like you did, if you know or at least are aware of them being wrong, makes no sense to me?
50% isn't wrong.

No, there is no designer or creator in evolution!!

Things evolved based on the environment that a living organism lives in. That was why I said that you could say that nature is the designer. But don't confuse this with me saying that nature makes things with a specific purpose in mind, like what a human or God would, but bees make their beehive the way they do because that was how they evolved and they had the best success with. But there are not some bee designers sitting around having decided this, nature made it like through the process of evolution.
Built in intelligence is still intelligence.

So in that case God makes mistakes right?
How did you arrive at that conclusion?

That's a good question. If God can't make mistakes, then he must know everything, otherwise, I would say that mistakes will happen. It also makes one wonder, when he is going to judge people, how many mistakes are made here because he didn't really pay attention to that person.
Does not compute. Why would mistakes happen?
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Isn't that kind of a logic conclusion?

If God was all-knowing, meaning he knows the future. Then one would assume that God allow something to happen intentionally. Which would probably result in some moral discussion, whether God allowing suffering is morally right or not when he is said to be all good.

If God does not know the future or at least chooses to not know certain things, then mistakes or unforeseen things will happen, given that God wouldn't be aware of what a certain action/thing could end up with. Let's say God didn't pay attention to a meteor heading towards Earth that killed all life as we know it, assuming that God didn't want this to happen, it could if he didn't know or paid attention to this meteor.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Isn't that kind of a logic conclusion?

If God was all-knowing, meaning he knows the future. Then one would assume that God allow something to happen intentionally. Which would probably result in some moral discussion, whether God allowing suffering is morally right or not when he is said to be all good.

If God does not know the future or at least chooses to not know certain things, then mistakes or unforeseen things will happen, given that God wouldn't be aware of what a certain action/thing could end up with. Let's say God didn't pay attention to a meteor heading towards Earth that killed all life as we know it, assuming that God didn't want this to happen, it could if he didn't know or paid attention to this meteor.
I'm trying to figure out how man's mess is God's mistake.

God can allow suffering, and still be just, and perfect morally.
If God allows things to play out as they are, with a "plan" which establishes a 'standard' for everyone which prevents any problem from occuring, and God corrects all problems permanently, how is that immoral.

Romans 8:18-21
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
I'm trying to figure out how man's mess is God's mistake.
If you design and create something with a certain desired outcome, and things don't go as you planned, there is something wrong with your design or your build.

God can allow suffering, and still be just, and perfect morally.
I challenge that when I hear of children nbeing born with defects or develop cancers. This worlkd is what God created, yes? So what exists, and how it functions is how God wanted it. If God wanted some other outcome, what wen't wrong? Obviously God could be surprised that things didn't go as planned, yes? But If God knew things would go wrong, then it was the plan from the start.

If God allows things to play out as they are, with a "plan" which establishes a 'standard' for everyone which prevents any problem from occuring, and God corrects all problems permanently, how is that immoral.

Romans 8:18-21
When has God ever cured cancer in a dying mother, or child? Don't you think the mother of several children dying of brest cancer should be cured so she can raise her kids?
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
I'm trying to figure out how man's mess is God's mistake.

God can allow suffering, and still be just, and perfect morally.
If God allows things to play out as they are, with a "plan" which establishes a 'standard' for everyone which prevents any problem from occuring, and God corrects all problems permanently, how is that immoral.

Romans 8:18-21
As I said it would most likely end in a moral discussion :D

If God is the ultimate ruler of everything, surely he can do whatever he wants. But he is not above our judgement in regard to what is morally right or wrong.

A baby dying at birth, I would find it somewhat difficult to defend how that would be morally right to let happen, if I had the ability to prevent it, without any effort or risk to myself.

Why would God not do something, unless that particular baby needed to die for the greater plan of God or whatever? Even if God needed that baby to not live, why not simply prevent the pregnancy in the first place? At least that way the parents wouldn't know or have to experience such an event. And God would still get things as he wanted unless he needed the parents to suffer through that experience or whatever.

I don't see how this is the best option, God or not.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
As I said it would most likely end in a moral discussion :D

If God is the ultimate ruler of everything, surely he can do whatever he wants. But he is not above our judgement in regard to what is morally right or wrong.

A baby dying at birth, I would find it somewhat difficult to defend how that would be morally right to let happen, if I had the ability to prevent it, without any effort or risk to myself.

Why would God not do something, unless that particular baby needed to die for the greater plan of God or whatever? Even if God needed that baby to not live, why not simply prevent the pregnancy in the first place? At least that way the parents wouldn't know or have to experience such an event. And God would still get things as he wanted unless he needed the parents to suffer through that experience or whatever.

I don't see how this is the best option, God or not.
I can understand one speaking with limited facts being guided by their emotions.
It's like the person who let's their emotions prevent them from making rational decisions. So they can't understand why someone would allow their child to have an operation that results in temporary pain. All they can see is the pain the child experiences. They don't see the reason for allowing that.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
If you design and create something with a certain desired outcome, and things don't go as you planned, there is something wrong with your design or your build.
When one creates something with the potential to fail, but with a plan for a particular outcome, nothing is wrong with the design

It's like the craftsman that uses glass to make a vase, knowing that the owner could break it.
He chose not to use steel, because of the weight, and the finish.

I challenge that when I hear of children nbeing born with defects or develop cancers. This worlkd is what God created, yes?
No.

So what exists, and how it functions is how God wanted it.
No.

If God wanted some other outcome, what wen't wrong?
Man's choice.

Obviously God could be surprised that things didn't go as planned, yes?
No.

But If God knew things would go wrong, then it was the plan from the start.
No. ...but if he knew things would go wrong before creating, it was allowed in order to fulfill his purpose in the end, with the knowledge that it was a momentary "hell".

When has God ever cured cancer in a dying mother, or child?
God's purpose to end cancer permanently, is in progress.
A house is not completed until one lays the foundation, the floor, the walls, the roof...

God put things in place immediately after man's fall.
It would take time for that process to be completed.

Don't you think the mother of several children dying of brest cancer should be cured so she can raise her kids?
We all would like to live in a paradise right now :), and God yearns to give us that.
(Jeremiah 29:11) “‘For I well know the thoughts that I am thinking toward you,’ declares Jehovah, ‘thoughts of peace, and not of calamity, to give you a future and a hope.

However, something important needs to be established before that can happen.
For those who wait in anticipation, it may seem a long and painful journey, but as it is, the journey has to be made... not God's fault.

The wait is worth it. :)
(Romans 8:18) For I consider that the sufferings of the present time do not amount to anything in comparison with the glory that is going to be revealed in us.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
I can understand one speaking with limited facts being guided by their emotions.
It's like the person who let's their emotions prevent them from making rational decisions. So they can't understand why someone would allow their child to have an operation that results in temporary pain. All they can see is the pain the child experiences. They don't see the reason for allowing that.
What limited facts are you referring to? not sure I understand what you mean.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Why God allows suffering. Why the parent allows the child to have the operation, that will result in pain.
The parents allow it because it can save their child, which I guess they think is better than it dying I assume and there is no painless alternative. What is God's excuse? :)
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
The parents allow it because it can save their child, which I guess they think is better than it dying I assume and there is no painless alternative. What is God's excuse? :)
God allowed the human race to temporarily suffer, in order to
  • allow the human race to have life - exist.
  • allow the human race to be free from suffering.
  • settle an important issue that would also prevents the human race from ever having to suffer anytime future.
  • allow the human race to live without ever dying.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
When one creates something with the potential to fail, but with a plan for a particular outcome, nothing is wrong with the design
Not when you admit you designed somethin that will fail, thus is not perfect. That means you can't expect the creation to be perfect. So when that designed system ends up with defects in children and cancers, then that is part of the design.

It's like the craftsman that uses glass to make a vase, knowing that the owner could break it.
He chose not to use steel, because of the weight, and the finish.
Genetic defects and cancers are not synonymous to breaking glass. The glass is made with cracks and delivered broken.


No rebuttal?

So cancers exist in God's creation, but God didn't do it? Since cancers exist in God's creation, and you think God didn't cause them, then God can't manage his creation, because we have cancers. So explain what happened. God screwed up somehow, or cancer is part of the design.


No rebuttal?

So God created everything himself, yes? God didn't hire out the work, yes? So whatever happenes in creation falls on God because there is no one else to blame. If you say no agaion, then explain how cancers exist but it isn't what God wanted. What is going on that God isn't in control?


Man's choice.
So you are saying man doesn't have very good judgment? Why didn't God create man with better judgment? If God creates man and wants certain outcomes, don;t you think God should create man with excellent judgment, and not foolish?


No rebuttal?

So God can't be surprised, so when man made poor judgments and went off track from what God wanted he wasn't surprised, God knew man would do what man did? If so, then God made man exactly as he did, and to behave exactly as man does.


No. ...but if he knew things would go wrong before creating, it was allowed in order to fulfill his purpose in the end, with the knowledge that it was a momentary "hell".
If a designer knows things will go wrong in how his creation works then it is deliberate. God is to blame for how things are now, according to your statement above.


God's purpose to end cancer permanently, is in progress.
1. Then why did God create or allow cancer at all if he wants to get rid of it? 2. What is taking so long for God to fix this?

A house is not completed until one lays the foundation, the floor, the walls, the roof...
Cancers are not part of anything constructive. They are destructive.

God put things in place immediately after man's fall.
It would take time for that process to be completed.
So it is all designed, and how man is now is part of god's plan, and God is to blame.


We all would like to live in a paradise right now :), and God yearns to give us that.
God could do it if your beliefs are correct. For some reason God is unable or unwilling since God is capable.

However, something important needs to be established before that can happen.
For those who wait in anticipation, it may seem a long and painful journey, but as it is, the journey has to be made... not God's fault.

Atheists don't have minds consumed with all these ideas and we function with more ease and realism.
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
"You have to look at the process as a whole, and if you do so you will see an inexorable movement toward correctness, not error."


No. Just the above quote.

Alright. We disagree it seems. Do you really not see the progression in science? It's so obvious to me.

Hmm. So pre modern medicine isn't effective?

You mean like bloodletting? (from wikipedia):

The practice has now been abandoned by modern-style medicine for all except a few very specific medical conditions.[3] In the overwhelming majority of cases, the historical use of bloodletting was harmful to patients.[4]

No. I didn't say that either.
This is the same thing as accusing a person of dismissing everything based on a few "errors"
I know why the opposition does that though. They try to pin "anti" on to anyone that points out, or draws attention to something that is factual.

That did seem to be what you were doing.

That depends on what you consider a Christian.
If you are referring to the world's view, which I believe you are, then that's every Tom, Dick, and Harry. Just mutter the words Jesus Christ, and you are in.
I'm not referring to those. I didn't say "Christians". I said Christians.
Perhaps you can define Christian, if you don't understand what I am saying.

Oh, I understand perfectly what you are saying. In short, your version of Christianity is correct and all the others are wrong. There's a thread kicking around somewhere here that asks that very question, "how to define a Christian". I'm no more able to do that than most people who responded to it. The problem for someone like me is that all Christian sects consider their own versions of Christianity to be correct. And they all have a list of Bible verses that "prove" it.

Hmm. I use medical science.
Are you suggesting medical science is only what you agree with?

No. There we can both play the "no" game.

Ha Ha. Thanks for the joke.
I'm not in the mood to list all those dangerous drugs out there, which people are prescribed.

Actually, you're right in a sense. Drugs that have an effect on the body tend to have side effects. The question is though, whether in a particular case the side effects are worth it to get the benefits of the drug. Let's take an example, antibiotics. Do you doubt that they were a huge breakthrough in the treatment of infections? But they tend to mess up the balance of bacteria in the GI tract. So we take pro-biotics to remedy that. Would you rather do without antibiotics because they are "modern medical science"?


Every one of these applies to patients with specific conditions and in some cases it says that further studies are necessary to establish causality. That just means that in some cases blood transfusions may not be indicated, not that all blood transfusions are harmful.

"alternative to medical science"? What???
So any medical science aside from orthodox medical science, is not medical science?

Excuse me if I don't attempt to untangle that.

I was just trying to find out, as you seem to be opposed to modern medical science, what alternative you consider to be superior. Was that such a difficult question?

...and no. I don't attack science... anymore than scientist do.

That's not how it sounds. You certainly denied my statement that science, despite it's mistakes, is improving as time goes by (see the start of this post).

Some people don't like to hear anything contrary to their beliefs.

You more than most!
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
God allowed the human race to temporarily suffer, in order to
  • allow the human race to have life - exist.
  • allow the human race to be free from suffering.
  • settle an important issue that would also prevents the human race from ever having to suffer anytime future.
  • allow the human race to live without ever dying.
And how does this solve the parent's problem with their dying child?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
And how does this solve the parent's problem with their dying child?
What? You are the one with the dying child. Not me.
Last time I checked, surgery isn't only performed on dying children.
Why are you focusing on that anyways.
Were we talking about dying children?
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
What? You are the one with the dying child. Not me.
Last time I checked, surgery isn't only performed on dying children.
Why are you focusing on that anyways.
Were we talking about dying children?
Wait a second.

We were talking about the moral issue regarding a dying child, you asked why parents would allow the operation that caused pain to be done to their child. I answered that they would do that to save it, as there is no alternative.

Now, God could potentially save a child who is suffering from a similar issue, yet he doesn't. So what is his moral excuse for not helping? I questioned whether this was part of God's grand plan maybe? But also suggested an alternative to how God could do this and end up with the same result, without causing any harm to the parents or child. And then questions that maybe the parent's suffering was part of his plan, given that he didn't do that either.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Not when you admit you designed somethin that will fail, thus is not perfect. That means you can't expect the creation to be perfect. So when that designed system ends up with defects in children and cancers, then that is part of the design.
Designed something that will fail!!!? Fail to do what?
As far as I remember, Adam multiplied and filled the earth..
As far as I recall, the Bible says, "God saw everything, and it was very good."
Therefore, Adam and Eve were made perfect, just as God wanted.
God purpose was not immediately fulfilled, but it will be. So no, it has not failed. It can't.

To the craftsman, the vase is the perfect vase - just as he wanted it to be. He did not fail. The vase is not a failure.
It broke, but through careless

If the owner breaks the vase, the craftsman did not fail, since his vase was not supposed to be shatter proof.
He did not use steel.

God did not fail since Adam was not designed to be a robot - programmed to obey God.

So the creators of this track, designed a car to run the track.

cc5ae1f5959abbb7c98aeeeeac315bc7.jpg


This is only a simple example.
Let's see this track as having two different paths, leading to two different ends, and one of those, is a dead end.

The car is not programmed to follow one track.
If the car has it's own decision making AI, and chooses the path to the dead end, the designer has not failed, since he did not design the car that it could only follow the other track.

If he did, he would have failed, since he would have made the mistake of giving the car a decision making AI.

Genetic defects and cancers are not synonymous to breaking glass. The glass is made with cracks and delivered broken.
Pardon me? The glass is made with cracks and delivered broken? What???
No. The craftsman did not make a cracked and broken glass.

The owner breaking the glass is synonymous to causing defects and cancers.

No rebuttal?

So cancers exist in God's creation, but God didn't do it? Since cancers exist in God's creation, and you think God didn't cause them, then God can't manage his creation, because we have cancers. So explain what happened. God screwed up somehow, or cancer is part of the design.
See above.
God's creation did not have defects.
Creating something, and something coming from that creation are not the same thing.

For example, a good printer designed to print exactly what is fed from the word processor, will do so, as long as there is ink, and the printer has not reached its end of life.
If however, I mess with the ink cartridge head, it will not produce what it is supposed to.

Likewise, so long as God's creation was not "messed with", what would have been produced would be perfect.
Adam messed up, and so... They are the ones who have acted corruptly. They are not his children, the defect is their own.. . . (Deuteronomy 32:5)

No rebuttal?

So God created everything himself, yes?
God created Adam and Eve, and living things, in the Garden of Eden.
Through these, all other life was made.

God didn't hire out the work, yes? So whatever happenes in creation falls on God because there is no one else to blame. If you say no agaion, then explain how cancers exist but it isn't what God wanted. What is going on that God isn't in control?
n/a

So you are saying man doesn't have very good judgment? Why didn't God create man with better judgment? If God creates man and wants certain outcomes, don;t you think God should create man with excellent judgment, and not foolish?
What does good judgment have to do with personal choice?
If I told you to drink water, and natural fruit juice, but you want to drink alcohol, would you say you don't have good judgment, because you choose to, and prefer to drink alcohol?

To have good judgment, one must pay attention to wisdom. How else would one have good judgment?

No rebuttal?

So God can't be surprised, so when man made poor judgments and went off track from what God wanted he wasn't surprised, God knew man would do what man did?
It was a personal choice to do what man wanted to do. Good judgment had nothing to do with it.
No. God did not determine to know what man would do - what choice they would make.

Now that we are here...
Would you consider it a lack of good judgment to take sides with someone who says God is immoral, and there is no reason why you must follow God, since you don't think there is any basis for him being the one to decide what is moral?

I see your answer already. Good.
Here, we demonstrate the wisdom of God, knowing before he created mankind, what we now know.

The exact same thing atheists are saying today, was said before Eve gave birth to any offspring.
You make this argument ... or something like it.
How do we know God's directions are moral? Who decides that God is moral?

When it boils down to it, you are really putting forth the arguement, "Who or what has the right to determine what good is / what is moral?'"

(Genesis 3:4-5) 4 . . .the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die. 5 For God knows that in the very day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and bad.”

In other words, God is immoral. God is withholding from you, the right to make your own decisions on morality.
God considered this issue before hand and when it was raised, he was and is, in a position to have everyone - including the angel see it settled.

Hence the tree of knowledge of good and bad, which represented God's right as sovereign to determine for his subjects what is good and bad, served to give man the opportunity to accept that he has that right, or choose to reject it.
So God was way ahead of man, you see.

Based on your thinking now, you are giving your answer, and thus, if you were in Adam's position, you would do the same as he did.
I'm sure you would not consider that poor judgment.
Would you?

If so, then God made man exactly as he did, and to behave exactly as man does.
n/a No.

If a designer knows things will go wrong in how his creation works then it is deliberate. God is to blame for how things are now, according to your statement above.
Right.

You said, God is to blame for how things are now, according to your statement - if he knew things would go wrong before creating, it was allowed in order to fulfill his purpose in the end, with the knowledge that it was a momentary "hell".

I said if he knew. I didn't say God knew. So no, that's not according to my statement.
I'm sure you aren't deliberately trying to put words in my mouth, which you are then responding to. :)

1. Then why did God create or allow cancer at all if he wants to get rid of it?
God did not create cancer, but allowed all ills - even those worse than cancer, for the reasons I mentioned earlier...
  • allow the human race to have life - exist.
  • allow the human race to be free from suffering.
  • settle an important issue that would also prevents the human race from ever having to suffer anytime future.
  • allow the human race to live without ever dying.
Which would you have prefered - that the human race not exist, or that the human race exist, even though facing temporary sufferings, with the prospect of life eternal, with no mourning nor outcry nor pain, nor death?

I don't know about you, but I am happy to be alive, despite going through serious and difficult times.
Suffering is temporary. Everlasting life in paradise is never ending.
Revelation 21:3-4; Romans 8:18

2. What is taking so long for God to fix this?
For one thing - settling the issue.
For another - giving people an opportunity to have the chance to live forever. The other option is to end the life of all who have not made the choice to accept his sovereignty... thereby cutting off any hope of them being able to enjoy life forever.

I don't know about you, but I think that's quite a big heart, to patiently endure all that comes with this package, and demonstrate such love for even those who sho little regard for him.

Cancers are not part of anything constructive. They are destructive.
Right.

So it is all designed, and how man is now is part of god's plan, and God is to blame.
No. ...but if you want to believe that, it's your choice. You are certainly free to do so... exercise your free will.

God could do it if your beliefs are correct. For some reason God is unable or unwilling since God is capable.
He is doing it. :)
You want to know, why so long... why not now.
Perhaps you tire of the suffering. For many of us, it's not easy, but humans seem to manage things with some amazing resilience.

Sometimes I am amazed at how abused children deal with their abuse.

Atheists don't have minds consumed with all these ideas and we function with more ease and realism.
So I have heard. I know better.
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
Alright. We disagree it seems. Do you really not see the progression in science? It's so obvious to me.
I see there is progress, and regress... and the still waters. :grinning:
If you only see progress, then I think you should check your bias level.

You mean like bloodletting? (from wikipedia):

The practice has now been abandoned by modern-style medicine for all except a few very specific medical conditions.[3] In the overwhelming majority of cases, the historical use of bloodletting was harmful to patients.[4]
No. Did I say that? Then why did you pick that?
Is that your bias showing?

Actually, you're right in a sense. Drugs that have an effect on the body tend to have side effects. The question is though, whether in a particular case the side effects are worth it to get the benefits of the drug. Let's take an example, antibiotics. Do you doubt that they were a huge breakthrough in the treatment of infections? But they tend to mess up the balance of bacteria in the GI tract. So we take pro-biotics to remedy that. Would you rather do without antibiotics because they are "modern medical science"?
You're picking again.
Let me pick a few hundred and ask you the same question. :)
I don't have that time.

Every one of these applies to patients with specific conditions and in some cases it says that further studies are necessary to establish causality. That just means that in some cases blood transfusions may not be indicated, not that all blood transfusions are harmful.
Your question was, 'What is wrong with blood transfusions?'

Are blood transfusion dangerous?

The silent risks of blood transfusion
Purpose of review:
Clinical research has identified blood transfusion as an independent risk factor for immediate and long-term adverse outcomes, including an increased risk of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, renal failure, infection and malignancy. New findings have called into question the traditional assumptions clinicians utilize in evaluating the risks and benefits of blood transfusion. Appreciation of newly recognized risks is important for conserving scarce resources and optimizing patient outcomes.

Summary:
The benefits of blood transfusion have never been conclusively demonstrated, but evidence of transfusion-related harm continues to accumulate. Given the transfusion triggers that currently predominate in clinical practice it appears that clinical outcomes could improve significantly with more widespread adoption of restrictive transfusion strategies.


The Risks of Blood Transfusions
Extensive screening helps prevent the transmission of infectious diseases; however, there are additional risks that one must consider when considering having a blood transfusion. These risks, some of which are serious, must be weighed against the health concerns that can be caused by a lack of blood or blood cells, such as anemia and hypovolemia.

Blood Transfusions Still Overused and May Do More Harm Than Good in Some Patients
Citing the lack of clear guidelines for ordering blood transfusions during surgery, Johns Hopkins researchers say a new study confirms there is still wide variation in the use of transfusions and frequent use of transfused blood in patients who don’t need it.

The resulting overuse of blood is problematic, the researchers say, because blood is a scarce and expensive resource and because recent studies have shown that surgical patients do no better, and may do worse, if given transfusions prematurely or unnecessarily. Transfusion is not as safe as people think,” says Steven M. Frank, M.D., leader of the study described in the journal Anesthesiology.

How Dangerous Are Blood Transfusions?
While routine procedures like a blood transfusion are often assumed to be safe, there is always a risk of complications. These can range from mild to severe. They may include both immediate acute symptoms and slow to develop long-term diseases.

It is actually not uncommon for a blood transfusion to cause itching, hives, fever, or other symptoms of allergic reaction within a few days. A hemolytic reaction occurs when your immune system attacks the new red blood cells because the donor’s blood type was not a close enough match. Your body interprets the blood as a pathogen and begins to react. If the reaction is severe, it can cause significant harm to your kidneys, lung injury, circulation issues, air embolism, hypothermia, or clotting abnormalities. Any of these can become life threatening.


Excuse me if I don't attempt to untangle that.

I was just trying to find out, as you seem to be opposed to modern medical science, what alternative you consider to be superior. Was that such a difficult question?
If you ask the questions right in the first place, you would not expect me to read your mind, and add or insert words.
Superior? That's not the issue here. That's deviating from the topic.

That's not how it sounds. You certainly denied my statement that science, despite it's mistakes, is improving as time goes by (see the start of this post).
You didn't mention the regressions. So it seems you ignore them. I give consideration to them.

You more than most!
:)
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Designed something that will fail!!!? Fail to do what?
As far as I remember, Adam multiplied and filled the earth..
As far as I recall, the Bible says, "God saw everything, and it was very good."
Therefore, Adam and Eve were made perfect, just as God wanted.
God purpose was not immediately fulfilled, but it will be. So no, it has not failed. It can't.
The dilemma is how Christians say God is not pleased with how humans turned out. If God wanted to create perfect beings then God would have created perfect humans. He didn't, so he either mad a mistake or he created humans with deliberate flaws.

To the craftsman, the vase is the perfect vase - just as he wanted it to be. He did not fail. The vase is not a failure.
It broke, but through careless

If the owner breaks the vase, the craftsman did not fail, since his vase was not supposed to be shatter proof.
He did not use steel.

God did not fail since Adam was not designed to be a robot - programmed to obey God.
None of this is appliacable because humans aren't toys or puppets or handled like a vase. In your scenario the vase would break itself. That is a manufacturing flaw.


The car is not programmed to follow one track.
If the car has it's own decision making AI, and chooses the path to the dead end, the designer has not failed, since he did not design the car that it could only follow the other track.

If he did, he would have failed, since he would have made the mistake of giving the car a decision making AI.
The race track analogy isn't applicable or sound, so irrelevant.


Pardon me? The glass is made with cracks and delivered broken? What???
No. The craftsman did not make a cracked and broken glass.

The owner breaking the glass is synonymous to causing defects and cancers.
Adam and Eve were not owned. No one handled them. They are the vases in your analogy, there are no other actors except God. The humans were not perfect, they were lied to and duped, all because God created the serpent and then allowed the serpent to tempt them., A&E were not sufficiently able to resist temptation, as God knew. So it was all a set up. If God had not created the serpent, had not allowed the serpent to tempt them, they would have had no reason to disobey.

God din;t have to make robots, all he had to do was create A&E with sufficient wisdom and knowledge to resist temptation. So God either made a mistake, or he designed it this way.


See above.
God's creation did not have defects.
Creating something, and something coming from that creation are not the same thing.
Since God knows all it IS the same thing.

Likewise, so long as God's creation was not "messed with", what would have been produced would be perfect.
Adam messed up, and so... They are the ones who have acted corruptly. They are not his children, the defect is their own.. . . (Deuteronomy 32:5)
And how did creation get messed with? God created the serpent and then allowed it to mess with A&E. God knew the outcome, by your own admission that God knows all, and doesn't get surprised.

What does good judgment have to do with personal choice?
If I told you to drink water, and natural fruit juice, but you want to drink alcohol, would you say you don't have good judgment, because you choose to, and prefer to drink alcohol?
Yes. Good judgment MEANS making good decisions.

To have good judgment, one must pay attention to wisdom. How else would one have good judgment?
Well if God had given A&E good judgment they would have resisted temptation. He didn't.


The exact same thing atheists are saying today, was said before Eve gave birth to any offspring.
You make this argument ... or something like it.
How do we know God's directions are moral? Who decides that God is moral?
Well, since Gods aren't known to exist we critical thinkers can only assess the morality of the many thousands of gods by what you believers claim. I find your version of God to be immoral since we all agree that defects and cancers are bad, and according to you God can fix this. But you also claim that God made everything, and is perfect, dioesn't make mistakes, etc. So somehow in God's creation cancers exist, and that falls on the creator. Do you really think if God did NOT want cancers to exist they would some how end up existing against God's will? You can't have it both ways.

Right.

You said, God is to blame for how things are now, according to your statement - if he knew things would go wrong before creating, it was allowed in order to fulfill his purpose in the end, with the knowledge that it was a momentary "hell".
That is a conclusion based on your claims about God. You are just unwilling to admit that God is responsible for things you consider bad.

I said if he knew. I didn't say God knew. So no, that's not according to my statement.
OK, so now you are saying God doesn't know all? You have to argue this to get your God off the hook. But it still means God is responsible, and should have designed humans so that defects and cancers don't happen.

God did not create cancer, but allowed all ills - even those worse than cancer, for the reasons I mentioned earlier...
  • allow the human race to have life - exist.
  • allow the human race to be free from suffering.
  • settle an important issue that would also prevents the human race from ever having to suffer anytime future.
  • allow the human race to live without ever dying.
Which would you have prefered - that the human race not exist, or that the human race exist, even though facing temporary sufferings, with the prospect of life eternal, with no
mourning nor outcry nor pain, nor death?
None of this explains how cancers and defects came about if God didn't plan or design it into animal DNA.


For one thing - settling the issue.
For another - giving people an opportunity to have the chance to live forever. The other option is to end the life of all who have not made the choice to accept his sovereignty... thereby cutting off any hope of them being able to enjoy life forever.

I don't know about you, but I think that's quite a big heart, to patiently endure all that comes with this package, and demonstrate such love for even those who sho little regard for him.
Why would a God have a plan to live forever but then create biology with defects and cancers, among other diseases? The whole afterlife idea is dubious, egocentric, greedy, and most likely an idea religious leaders conjured to manipulate believer's biggest fear: death.

He is doing it. :)
You want to know, why so long... why not now.
Perhaps you tire of the suffering. For many of us, it's not easy, but humans seem to manage things with some amazing resilience.

Sometimes I am amazed at how abused children deal with their abuse.


So I have heard. I know better.
None of this is coherent, nor explains why a God would create cancers, and then work slowly to fix it. Let's note that there is no evidence that cancers are declining naturally. God has the chance to eliminate cancers, defects, and other fatal diseases (at least for children, i mean, come on God, WTF?), but God does nothing. Could this explain why Christians only have hope after they die? Because god seems totally indifferent to suffering by real people while alive.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Wait a second.

We were talking about the moral issue regarding a dying child, you asked why parents would allow the operation that caused pain to be done to their child. I answered that they would do that to save it, as there is no alternative.

Now, God could potentially save a child who is suffering from a similar issue, yet he doesn't. So what is his moral excuse for not helping? I questioned whether this was part of God's grand plan maybe? But also suggested an alternative to how God could do this and end up with the same result, without causing any harm to the parents or child. And then questions that maybe the parent's suffering was part of his plan, given that he didn't do that either.
Thus you missed the point of the illustration, and have gone off the rails... it seems.
Remember you said you don't want us to be talking past each other.
Ignoring the connection between the illustration, and the answers given, to your question, 'What God's excuse?" would be doing just that... talking past each other.

Note. You did not ask how my answer related to the illustration. It appears you totally ignored them, and went for another argument... what you think God could or should have done.

So, mankind not existing does not matter... Oh wait! You have another way God could have allowed mankind to exist, and not suffer!
Let's hear it. :)
 
Top