Atheists - A Question...

[nPeace]

You know I had to look that up.

Yes, we seem to agree on some things. It's probably that we have both been part of this kind of discussion for so long that we see a certain pattern in it all.

I'll mention it to him next time I visit our home dimension.

Or you all have one thing in common - an agenda, to label believers anti-science.
That's a common MO of persons who argue against believers.

A believer who is not against science, but does not accept all beliefs of scientists, is viewed as against science.
A scientist who disagrees with those same beliefs of scientists, is not labeled such though.

So that clearly demonstrates a common agenda, and I believe it's similar to an ad hominem - attacking the intelligence or motive of the believer.

I've experience it here as a common last resort of those debating believers.
That would explain why it usually come up last, or when there is no success in breaking the believer's arguments.

I'm sure Jose Fly already knows the questions you asked, and the response you got.

 

[nPeace]

The solution would be to simply not have it. Who says that humans should look like we do now or that anything had to be like it is now, couldn't God have created a completely different type of Universe if he wanted?

You don't answer my question, it's pretty much just a yes or no question

Couldn't God have created a completely different type of Universe if he wanted?

That's like asking, 'Couldn't we all stay single if we wanted?
The reason we have a mate is because of the feelings we have toward someone.

The Bible says...
(Genesis 1:26-28) 26 . . .“Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every creeping animal that is moving on the earth.” 27 And God went on to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. 28 Further, God blessed them, and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth.”

From that, it tells us God wanted to.
God wanted a family of mankind... of the earth.
The scriptures say, the earliest of God's creation was fond of mankind. (Proverbs 8:22-31)

It's what God wanted.
God's love is what dictates his actions.
So "if God wanted to" = "if God was different".
If the creator was a different God, maybe we wouldn't be here... maybe... maybe.

Got me sounding like a scientist now.
I guess we all speculate from time to time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are not listening to me. When you do, we can continue.
God created perfect beings.
I quoted the text in Deuteronomy, which shows where the flaws originated, and it was not from God, and I explained what perfection is.

If I make a vase of glass, and it is the way I want it to be, it is perfect to me. It does not need to be steel, or kryptonite to be perfect.
Perfection is relative,
There is only one perfect being.
Adam and Eve were perfect beings, in that they were the way God wanted them to be - Made in his image - that is, with his qualities, and the potential to grow in them, and having the ability to make free willed decisions.
There was no flaw. God declared his creative works, "Very Good".

God did not want Adam and Eve to be robots that could only make one decision.

If you just want to say what you want to say, regardless, this is not a conversation.

So God wanted Adam and Eve to rebel, then.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just because I pick nits ... it would actually be difficult to make creatures that could live in this world without the ability to feel pain. Not the physical act of creation, but they wouldn't survive long as pain is a primary survival mechanism.

I don't think that invalidates your point, because there could be a different mechanism to allow us to avoid physical damage.

I think most of these sorts of objections don't really work when we're talking about a god, though.

It's all fine and good to say "if this organism was 'designed' differently, it wouldn't work as well in its environment"... but the claim is also that God designed the environment.

I like a question I heard years ago that goes to the heart of the issue: is there suffering in Heaven?

Any theist who answers "yes" is conceding that God is capable of designing a system without suffering.

(And if you follow this up with "is there free will in Heaven?", you can get them to either concede that suffering isn't a necessary consequence of free will or that God doesn't actually care about preserving our free will)

 

[Alien826]

As I suggested? I thought I said it would require disconnecting your brain.
I thought for a moment I was going senile.

Yes, that's what you said and I apologize for not quoting you correctly. What I should have said is that it would not be necessary to disconnect the brain from the nerves as the nerves could be redesigned to carry all sensation but pain.

It was in response to your saying that disconnecting the brain would mean we would lose all the good sensations as well, which is true (and we'd die pretty much instantly as there is a nerve connection from the brain that keeps our hearts beating). My point was that we could keep the nerves but lose the pain sensation.

The brain is like a CPU (central processing unit).
One needs the brain for the nerves to send messages.
The underdeveloped sensory nerves cannot send messages to your brain about pain and temperature. For example, your brain tells your autonomic nervous system to make you sweat, but the message is not received.

Correct.

So you agree that not feeling pain does not end suffering, becase if I burn a hole in my hand because I grabbed a piece of lead that's red hot, that would cause me so much trauma... not to mention if I ripped loose my arm.

Your article says such persons can get infections or have injuries that don't heal because they do not instinctively care for them and try to protect them from things that would cause more pain.
That's suffering, isn't it?

Again correct, and I say as much in another post. I also added that if we (God, I guess to stay on subject) removed the pain sensation we would need another mechanism to alert us to damage to the body. This was discussed a bit and various mechanisms were suggested.

It all sounds a bit silly, but the point is that (maybe) the body could have been designed to work without pain.

Now, if pain were to be removed, it would leave all other kinds of suffering. I agree. God could address those in version 2.0.

I'm going to add something as well. The Problem of Evil (which is what this is all about, and goes back a long way in philosophy, modern skeptics didn't invent it) addresses all kinds of "evil", or suffering if you prefer. There's natural suffering, which is caused by the way the world works (like being struck by lightning). It's difficult to blame humans for that as we didn't create it and have no control over it. There's suffering caused by humans, like war. We can say that's our fault, though the discussion is usually about whether God bears ultimate responsibility for it. And there's suffering that can be seen as deserved, which can be defended, and suffering that happens to the innocent, which is difficult to defend and gives rise to ideas like original sin. All these can be examined in the context of Christian belief to see who or what caused them to come about.

 

[Alien826]

Or you all have one thing in common - an agenda, to label believers anti-science.
That's a common MO of persons who argue against believers.

A believer who is not against science, but does not accept all beliefs of scientists, is viewed as against science.
A scientist who disagrees with those same beliefs of scientists, is not labeled such though.

So that clearly demonstrates a common agenda, and I believe it's similar to an ad hominem - attacking the intelligence or motive of the believer.

I've experience it here as a common last resort of those debating believers.
That would explain why it usually come up last, or when there is no success in breaking the believer's arguments.

I'm sure Jose Fly already knows the questions you asked, and the response you got.

I have no idea if skeptics exist that behave as you describe. Probably so, as people vary. To quote what you nearly said earlier about something else, that's using a very broad brush to suggest that "we all" have an "agenda".

What I have seen is that believers tend to dispute specific scientific theories, like evolution, that contradict some aspect of their belief system, like creationism. Though to be fair, when someone like Ken Ham clearly states that any science that contradicts the Bible is automatically wrong it is easy to see why that would be seen as being against all science. I remember debating an AiG guy who used two expressions. "Science" (doesn't contradict the Bible, so good) and "science so called" (contradicts the Bible, so bad). Can you see how that could be seen as being against all science, as it presents science as being so easily thrown aside?

Personally my experience is that believers tend to be OK with a lot of science, but not with all of it. That would be fine if their doubts about a given aspect of science were scientifically based. You're right, scientists doubt scientific theories all the time. That's how it works. The difference with (many) believers is that they tend to start with the conclusion (that the theory is wrong because the Bible says something different) and then go on to look for some error in the theory. That's backwards to a scientist.

Seriously though, have you never talked to skeptics that are more reasonable in your eyes? Or are we all so totally wrong about believers?

 

[Alien826]

I think most of these sorts of objections don't really work when we're talking about a god, though.

It's all fine and good to say "if this organism was 'designed' differently, it wouldn't work as well in its environment"... but the claim is also that God designed the environment.

I like a question I heard years ago that goes to the heart of the issue: is there suffering in Heaven?

Any theist who answers "yes" is conceding that God is capable of designing a system without suffering.

(And if you follow this up with "is there free will in Heaven?", you can get them to either concede that suffering isn't a necessary consequence of free will or that God doesn't actually care about preserving our free will)

I think you meant "Any theist who answers "no" ...", but I get the point.

True enough, but I was just exploring one idea. There's an argument that introduces the idea of "the best of all possible worlds". The argument goes that if God is tri-omni, then this has to be the world with the least evil consistent with achieving his ends. And as one of the "omnis" is benevolence, then the desired end must be good too. The interesting thing is that to defeat that argument, we only have to find one instance where the world could be less evil, without making any difference to the general scheme of things. Just one baby who dies in pain being saved from that pain would do for a start.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think you meant "Any theist who answers "no" ...", but I get the point.

Whoops - yes.

True enough, but I was just exploring one idea. There's an argument that introduces the idea of "the best of all possible worlds". The argument goes that if God is tri-omni, then this has to be the world with the least evil consistent with achieving his ends. And as one of the "omnis" is benevolence, then the desired end must be good too. The interesting thing is that to defeat that argument, we only have to find one instance where the world could be less evil, without making any difference to the general scheme of things. Just one baby who dies in pain being saved from that pain would do for a start.

The other objection to that idea - or at least to a belief system that includes that idea - is that charity is evil: we're already in the best of all possible worlds, so any deviation from it - however well-intentioned - can only make things worse than they already are.

IOW, anyone making that argument who engages in charity - or literally any action at all - is demonstrating through their actions that they don't believe their own argument.

 

[Jose Fly]

I have no idea if skeptics exist that behave as you describe. Probably so, as people vary. To quote what you nearly said earlier about something else, that's using a very broad brush to suggest that "we all" have an "agenda".

What I have seen is that believers tend to dispute specific scientific theories, like evolution, that contradict some aspect of their belief system, like creationism. Though to be fair, when someone like Ken Ham clearly states that any science that contradicts the Bible is automatically wrong it is easy to see why that would be seen as being against all science. I remember debating an AiG guy who used two expressions. "Science" (doesn't contradict the Bible, so good) and "science so called" (contradicts the Bible, so bad). Can you see how that could be seen as being against all science, as it presents science as being so easily thrown aside?

Personally my experience is that believers tend to be OK with a lot of science, but not with all of it. That would be fine if their doubts about a given aspect of science were scientifically based. You're right, scientists doubt scientific theories all the time. That's how it works. The difference with (many) believers is that they tend to start with the conclusion (that the theory is wrong because the Bible says something different) and then go on to look for some error in the theory. That's backwards to a scientist.

Seriously though, have you never talked to skeptics that are more reasonable in your eyes? Or are we all so totally wrong about believers?

I gotta say, this is pretty fascinating. Here we have someone (@nPeace ) who frequently starts threads pointing out examples where "scientists are wrong", who believes many scientists are under the influence of Satan (especially those who work on evolution), who mocks others as engaging in "scientism" if they say they trust the conclusions of scientists, who accuses people of being "serpent like" when they try and explain science to him, and who denies a great deal of established science simply because it conflicts with his religious beliefs....

....and now that person is wondering why people tend to see him as anti-science? Gee, where would anyone get that idea?

 

[Alien826]

Whoops - yes.


The other objection to that idea - or at least to a belief system that includes that idea - is that charity is evil: we're already in the best of all possible worlds, so any deviation from it - however well-intentioned - can only make things worse than they already are.

IOW, anyone making that argument who engages in charity - or literally any action at all - is demonstrating through their actions that they don't believe their own argument.

Unless the charity is already factored in. I would think it would have to be seen at a somewhat higher level. That is, natural evil and our natures are part of the design and are the best possible. Then what we do with it is up to us. Otherwise, free will is out of the window. It's all a bit silly anyway, of course.

 

[Alien826]

I gotta say, this is pretty fascinating. Here we have someone (@nPeace ) who frequently starts threads pointing out examples where "scientists are wrong", who believes many scientists are under the influence of Satan (especially those who work on evolution), who mocks others as engaging in "scientism" if they say they trust the conclusions of scientists, who accuses people of being "serpent like" when they try and explain science to him, and who denies a great deal of established science simply because it conflicts with his religious beliefs....

....and now that person is wondering why people tend to see him as anti-science? Gee, where would anyone get that idea?

And we are in some kind of conspiracy against him. Ah well.

Anyway, are you using the black helicopter over the weekend? I have a trip planned.

 

[Jose Fly]

And we are in some kind of conspiracy against him. Ah well.

In a previous interaction where I made a deliberate effort to be very polite, not argue, and simply answer questions, he accused me of being "serpent like". Obviously he was worried my being nice was a ploy to get him to lower his guard, which I would exploit to lure him over to the dark side.

I'd link to that discussion, but apparently it's against RF rules.

Anyway, are you using the black helicopter over the weekend? I have a trip planned.

You're in luck! I just finished using it to plant fossils in key locations. It's all clean and ready to go!

 

[nPeace]

Just the other day I saw a rather uncensored documentary about crockodiles.
There was this one scene where some big dude caught a zebra. Pretty soon, 4 other crocks were in on it.
After some gruesome mistreatement and maiming by the first crock, the poor horsie basically simply exploded when the other 4 came in. Guts was flying everywhere. One of the most violent things I've ever seen to be honest.

It's kind of part of the kind of things I would expect by a world molded by an indifferent blind physical process.

Not really what I would expect from some all powerful entity that is moral perfection embodied.

Just as behaviors can be unlearned, behaviors are learned.

It's sickening but we have this...

...as opposed to this...

...and this ...as opposed to... let's just say, the opposite.
Think about it.

Letting go of a priory commitment to men's ideas to fill the gaps, which they came up with, because they couldn't understand animal's behaviors, would allow you to think rationally, and with reasonableness.
Thus allowing you to see things in a practical way, and make sense of things.

You don't realize it yet, but I hope you will.
It's because of being indoctrinated with those men's ideas, that you see only one explanation.
You say this about Christians, but you don't see how it applies to you.

If animals were once peaceful - consider that possible... then something changed their behavior.
That behavior can be unlearned. (Isaiah 65:25)

Have you ever been to the house of an angry person who owns an animal, and the home of a gentle person who owns animals?
I have, and the difference is evident.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, that's what you said and I apologize for not quoting you correctly. What I should have said is that it would not be necessary to disconnect the brain from the nerves as the nerves could be redesigned to carry all sensation but pain.

It was in response to your saying that disconnecting the brain would mean we would lose all the good sensations as well, which is true (and we'd die pretty much instantly as there is a nerve connection from the brain that keeps our hearts beating). My point was that we could keep the nerves but lose the pain sensation.



Correct.



Again correct, and I say as much in another post. I also added that if we (God, I guess to stay on subject) removed the pain sensation we would need another mechanism to alert us to damage to the body. This was discussed a bit and various mechanisms were suggested.

It all sounds a bit silly, but the point is that (maybe) the body could have been designed to work without pain.
Putting maybe in there is saying we don't know of any way, right?

Now, if pain were to be removed, it would leave all other kinds of suffering. I agree. God could address those in version 2.0.

I'm going to add something as well. The Problem of Evil (which is what this is all about, and goes back a long way in philosophy, modern skeptics didn't invent it) addresses all kinds of "evil", or suffering if you prefer. There's natural suffering, which is caused by the way the world works (like being struck by lightning). It's difficult to blame humans for that as we didn't create it and have no control over it. There's suffering caused by humans, like war. We can say that's our fault, though the discussion is usually about whether God bears ultimate responsibility for it. And there's suffering that can be seen as deserved, which can be defended, and suffering that happens to the innocent, which is difficult to defend and gives rise to ideas like original sin. All these can be examined in the context of Christian belief to see who or what caused them to come about.

Yes, we can investigate, which is a good thing.

There are people who actually believe that the earth reacts to man's treatment of it.
Not that the earth is intelligent, but simply that for every action, there is a reaction - for every cause, there is an effect.

So, man's mismanagement of the earth, will result in what we observe - extreme whether.
Extreme weather explicitly blamed on humans for the first time
Scientists take the bold step of saying phenomena wouldn’t have happened without global warming

The Bible, in Genesis tells us... No bush of the field was yet on the earth and no vegetation of the field had begun sprouting, because Jehovah God had not made it rain on the earth and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist would go up from the earth, and it watered the entire surface of the ground. (Genesis 2:5-6)

Hope you can picture that.
Some people have a hard time seeing something they aren't accustomed to.

The Bible also tells us, at Genesis 3:17-19 . . .cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. It will grow thorns and thistles for you, and you must eat the vegetation of the field. In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground. . .

Contrast that with the start man had. - Genesis 2:7-15

Again, the Bible tells us...

Spoiler: Get all the details

(Genesis 7:4) . . .I [Jehovah] will make it rain on the earth for 40 days and 40 nights. . .
(Genesis 8:1-2) 1 . . .God caused a wind to blow over the earth, and the waters began to subside. 2 The springs of the watery deep and the floodgates of the heavens were stopped up, so the rain from the heavens stopped falling.
(Exodus 9:23) . . .Jehovah sent thunder and hail, and fire fell down to the earth, and Jehovah kept making it rain down hail on the land of Egypt.
(Leviticus 26:4) . . .I will give you showers of rain at their proper time, and the land will yield its produce, and the trees of the field will give their fruit. . .
(Deuteronomy 11:17) . . .Otherwise, Jehovah’s anger will blaze against you, and he will shut up the heavens so that it will not rain and the ground will not give its produce and you will quickly perish from the good land that Jehovah is giving you.
(1 Kings 17:1) . . .Now E·liʹjah the Tishʹbite, an inhabitant of Gilʹe·ad, said to Aʹhab: “As surely as Jehovah the God of Israel whom I serve is living, during these years there will be no dew or rain except by my word!”

Or...

Spoiler: Cut to the chase

(Job 36:27-33) 27 He draws up the drops of water; They condense into rain from his mist; 28 Then the clouds pour it down; They shower down upon mankind. 29 Can anyone understand the layers of clouds, The thundering from his tent? 30 See how he spreads his lightning over it And covers the depths of the sea. 31 By these he sustains the peoples; He gives them food in abundance. 32 With his hands he covers the lightning, And he directs it against its target. 33 His thunder tells about him, Even the livestock tell who is coming.
(Mark 4:37-39) 37 Now a great violent windstorm broke out, and the waves kept crashing into the boat, so that the boat was close to being swamped. 38 But he was in the stern, sleeping on the pillow. So they woke him up and said to him: “Teacher, do you not care that we are about to perish?” 39 With that he got up and rebuked the wind and said to the sea: “Hush! Be quiet!” And the wind abated, and a great calm set in.

Where does this investigation lead?
To the conclusion that God gave man a perfect environment with just the right whether conditions.
Considering that these conditions changed solely on man's account - man's actions. That is, man's disobedience remove God's blessing, and intervention in preventing any extreme whether conditions - which God has power over, and can control.

Thus, lightning strikes on the people would not have existed.
Actually, I like how Job put it. Job 36:29-33

When we consider God's purpose as outlined in the pages of the Bible, we get a picture of a world with no evil, nor suffering... nor death, dependent on only one thing - obedience to God.

With everyone following God's guidance, the earth would be correctly managed, and man's perfect mind would contribute to zero dangerous actions or accidents.

Think of it this way...
If it were possible to get everyone to drive with due care, buckle up, don't drive and use cell phones, etc., think of how greatly road accidents and deaths would be reduced.
How much more, perfect people obediently following the guidelines of a perfect administration.

The problem of evil, is really not a problem... except in this system of things which was due to man's rebellion, and which God allowed - subjected to futility - on the basis of hope, of a world where these things will not exist.

 

[nPeace]

I have no idea if skeptics exist that behave as you describe. Probably so, as people vary. To quote what you nearly said earlier about something else, that's using a very broad brush to suggest that "we all" have an "agenda".

What I have seen is that believers tend to dispute specific scientific theories, like evolution, that contradict some aspect of their belief system, like creationism. Though to be fair, when someone like Ken Ham clearly states that any science that contradicts the Bible is automatically wrong it is easy to see why that would be seen as being against all science. I remember debating an AiG guy who used two expressions. "Science" (doesn't contradict the Bible, so good) and "science so called" (contradicts the Bible, so bad). Can you see how that could be seen as being against all science, as it presents science as being so easily thrown aside?

This is no different to you saying that scientists do not believe in certain 'scientific findings' - particularly ToE, because they have a commitment to some religious belief.

When it comes to other theories, and they are not believing those, and arguing over them, along with other scientists who have other varying theories, you don't attribute their skepticism to a religious commitment.
You say that's fine. Arguments and disagreements is fine in science.

That demonstrates, to me, that atheists and skeptics of the Bible, God, and religion, guard the ToE with their life, because they depend upon it as a means of declaring God and the Bible unnecessary.
So they attack anyone - doesn't matter how reputable a scientist they are. They are driven by their religious commitment to reject science... well the ToE, primarily. It's okay if they reject anything else.

Personally my experience is that believers tend to be OK with a lot of science, but not with all of it. That would be fine if their doubts about a given aspect of science were scientifically based. You're right, scientists doubt scientific theories all the time. That's how it works. The difference with (many) believers is that they tend to start with the conclusion (that the theory is wrong because the Bible says something different) and then go on to look for some error in the theory. That's backwards to a scientist.

You surprised me here. I almost was going to say you agreed with me then, but reading on, I am wondering.
I noticed you said "(many) believers", but that phrase means nothing when you apply your experience with "(many) believers", to any believer, saying, "Well my experience with these (many) believers I have spoken with has been A, therefore you must be the same."

You might as well have admitted that it is true, that you put all believers in the same basket as both dishonest, and anti-science.

This despite being told that many believers rejected the ToE before becoming believers, and many also believed the ToE before rejecting it after considering the alternative, because that made more sense to them, than the ToE.
Some non-believers don't even think ToE has strong explanatory 'power', and they don't even believe the Bible, so they have nothing to go looking for, in order to reject ToE.
It just doesn't make any sense.
Even Dawkins admitted that, but he believes it's acceptable... don't mind that it goes against what we know. Extrapolating is fine. It can happen.
I say with quite a lot of faith, it might happen... in their mind.

So then, why do you think we don't have the right to put all of you in a box, when you do that to us?

Seriously though, have you never talked to skeptics that are more reasonable in your eyes?

What do you mean by more reasonable?
I have met skeptics that think they are being reasonable, and probably strongly believe they are, but I only find them to be a little reasonable. Not completely.
I've not found any to be totally reasonable. I have found they avoid being reasonable when that's the only response.

Or are we all so totally wrong about believers?

There are some whom atheist think are believers, whom they aren't totally wrong about, but aren't totally right about either.

You may not know this, but a religious person can be an unbeliever. 2 Corinthians 4:3-4

 

[Alien826]

If animals were once peaceful - consider that possible... then something changed their behavior.
That behavior can be unlearned. (Isaiah 65:25)

I believe that Genesis says that all animals were vegetarians in the Garden.

How then do you explain that a meat eating animal (say a lion) has a digestive system is adapted to eat meat, and a "vegetarian" animal (say a cow) has a digestive system that is adapted to eat plants? Can a lion be a vegetarian? - Quora

For a vegetarian lion to eat meat would take a change to its body, not just its behavior.

 

[Alien826]

Yes, we can investigate, which is a good thing.

There are people who actually believe that the earth reacts to man's treatment of it.
Not that the earth is intelligent, but simply that for every action, there is a reaction - for every cause, there is an effect.

So, man's mismanagement of the earth, will result in what we observe - extreme whether.
Extreme weather explicitly blamed on humans for the first time
Scientists take the bold step of saying phenomena wouldn’t have happened without global warming

Yes, that's true. We are all part of the same system, which includes the sun too. Any part of the system can effect other parts.

The Bible, in Genesis tells us... No bush of the field was yet on the earth and no vegetation of the field had begun sprouting, because Jehovah God had not made it rain on the earth and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist would go up from the earth, and it watered the entire surface of the ground. (Genesis 2:5-6)

It probably doesn't matter to what you are saying, but why was the mist needed if there were no plants yet?

Hope you can picture that.
Some people have a hard time seeing something they aren't accustomed to.

Duh ... I think I see ...

The Bible also tells us, at Genesis 3:17-19 . . .cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. It will grow thorns and thistles for you, and you must eat the vegetation of the field. In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground. . .

Contrast that with the start man had. - Genesis 2:7-15

Again, the Bible tells us...

Spoiler: Get all the details

(Genesis 7:4) . . .I [Jehovah] will make it rain on the earth for 40 days and 40 nights. . .
(Genesis 8:1-2) 1 . . .God caused a wind to blow over the earth, and the waters began to subside. 2 The springs of the watery deep and the floodgates of the heavens were stopped up, so the rain from the heavens stopped falling.
(Exodus 9:23) . . .Jehovah sent thunder and hail, and fire fell down to the earth, and Jehovah kept making it rain down hail on the land of Egypt.
(Leviticus 26:4) . . .I will give you showers of rain at their proper time, and the land will yield its produce, and the trees of the field will give their fruit. . .
(Deuteronomy 11:17) . . .Otherwise, Jehovah’s anger will blaze against you, and he will shut up the heavens so that it will not rain and the ground will not give its produce and you will quickly perish from the good land that Jehovah is giving you.
(1 Kings 17:1) . . .Now E·liʹjah the Tishʹbite, an inhabitant of Gilʹe·ad, said to Aʹhab: “As surely as Jehovah the God of Israel whom I serve is living, during these years there will be no dew or rain except by my word!”

Or...

Spoiler: Cut to the chase

(Job 36:27-33) 27 He draws up the drops of water; They condense into rain from his mist; 28 Then the clouds pour it down; They shower down upon mankind. 29 Can anyone understand the layers of clouds, The thundering from his tent? 30 See how he spreads his lightning over it And covers the depths of the sea. 31 By these he sustains the peoples; He gives them food in abundance. 32 With his hands he covers the lightning, And he directs it against its target. 33 His thunder tells about him, Even the livestock tell who is coming.
(Mark 4:37-39) 37 Now a great violent windstorm broke out, and the waves kept crashing into the boat, so that the boat was close to being swamped. 38 But he was in the stern, sleeping on the pillow. So they woke him up and said to him: “Teacher, do you not care that we are about to perish?” 39 With that he got up and rebuked the wind and said to the sea: “Hush! Be quiet!” And the wind abated, and a great calm set in.

Yes, the Bible says that.

Where does this investigation lead?
To the conclusion that God gave man a perfect environment with just the right whether conditions.
Considering that these conditions changed solely on man's account - man's actions. That is, man's disobedience remove God's blessing, and intervention in preventing any extreme whether conditions - which God has power over, and can control.

Thus, lightning strikes on the people would not have existed.
Actually, I like how Job put it. Job 36:29-33

When we consider God's purpose as outlined in the pages of the Bible, we get a picture of a world with no evil, nor suffering... nor death, dependent on only one thing - obedience to God.

With everyone following God's guidance, the earth would be correctly managed, and man's perfect mind would contribute to zero dangerous actions or accidents.

It sounds like you are saying that God made the world to have lightning strikes, but continually intervened to either stop them happening or to make sure they didn't hit any people. To go on, when A&E disobeyed him, he effectively said, "OK let's see how you get on without me" and removed his control over the natural world, which then behaved "naturally", as God had created it to behave. Am I right so far?

One question. Did God create the thistle seeds (Genesis 3:18) after A&E disobeyed, or had the seeds been in the ground all along and he had been stopping them from sprouting? I get the idea with the lightning, which is a natural consequence of having clouds, but why put thistle seeds in a perfect world? It seems to me that God either knew all along that he would need to punish us, and made an imperfect world that would need his continual attention to suppress the "bad" bits, or he made a perfect world that had to be changed to make it imperfect. Which?

Think of it this way...
If it were possible to get everyone to drive with due care, buckle up, don't drive and use cell phones, etc., think of how greatly road accidents and deaths would be reduced.
How much more, perfect people obediently following the guidelines of a perfect administration.

Reduced, yes, but there would still be some accidents caused by factors outside our control. And there would still be lightning strikes, which we have no control over whatsoever.

The problem of evil, is really not a problem... except in this system of things which was due to man's rebellion, and which God allowed - subjected to futility - on the basis of hope, of a world where these things will not exist.

Nicely argued, but the response is that God created us with a propensity to disobey him, and should not be surprised or offended when we do just that.

 

[Alien826]

This is no different to you saying that scientists do not believe in certain 'scientific findings' - particularly ToE, because they have a commitment to some religious belief.

When it comes to other theories, and they are not believing those, and arguing over them, along with other scientists who have other varying theories, you don't attribute their skepticism to a religious commitment.
You say that's fine. Arguments and disagreements is fine in science.

That demonstrates, to me, that atheists and skeptics of the Bible, God, and religion, guard the ToE with their life, because they depend upon it as a means of declaring God and the Bible unnecessary.
So they attack anyone - doesn't matter how reputable a scientist they are. They are driven by their religious commitment to reject science... well the ToE, primarily. It's okay if they reject anything else.

Maybe so. If you prefer, anyone who challenges a scientific finding without supporting their challenge with scientific evidence is not using science correctly. Just as you would ask a fellow believer that challenged your conclusions to support them from the Bible. How's that?

And yes, disagreement in science is fine, no matter what the source, so long as it it properly supported. That does not include saying that some scientific theory is wrong based on what it says in the Bible. The Bible is not a scientific document (which doesn't make it without value).

You surprised me here. I almost was going to say you agreed with me then, but reading on, I am wondering.
I noticed you said "(many) believers", but that phrase means nothing when you apply your experience with "(many) believers", to any believer, saying, "Well my experience with these (many) believers I have spoken with has been A, therefore you must be the same."

You might as well have admitted that it is true, that you put all believers in the same basket as both dishonest, and anti-science.

I have been careful all along to say "some believers" and not "all believers". And I try not to call any of you dishonest, as I have no access to your inner motivations. Anti-science yes, some of you. But not all Christians by a long shot. For example, the Catholic church now accepts the ToE, with some provisos. Do Catholics believe in evolution? This site says there are approximately 1.2 billion Catholics in the world. How Many Catholics are in The World - Scripture Catholic And that's just one example. I'm pretty sure it also applies to a lot of Protestant denominations.

Of course if you are claiming that Catholics are not Christians, I will allow our Catholic friends here to reply.

This despite being told that many believers rejected the ToE before becoming believers, and many also believed the ToE before rejecting it after considering the alternative, because that made more sense to them, than the ToE.
Some non-believers don't even think ToE has strong explanatory 'power', and they don't even believe the Bible, so they have nothing to go looking for, in order to reject ToE.
It just doesn't make any sense.
Even Dawkins admitted that, but he believes it's acceptable... don't mind that it goes against what we know. Extrapolating is fine. It can happen.
I say with quite a lot of faith, it might happen... in their mind.

You can always find people that disbelieve in whatever subject you chose. Some people think the Earth is flat. So what?

So then, why do you think we don't have the right to put all of you in a box, when you do that to us?

IF we do that, and IF you think that is wrong, then why do the same thing? Do two wrongs make a right?(Philippians 2:14-15).

What do you mean by more reasonable?
I have met skeptics that think they are being reasonable, and probably strongly believe they are, but I only find them to be a little reasonable. Not completely.
I've not found any to be totally reasonable. I have found they avoid being reasonable when that's the only response.

I said "more reasonable in your eyes", so what I think is reasonable doesn't apply. Anyway, the bolded sentence answers my question.

There are some whom atheist think are believers, whom they aren't totally wrong about, but aren't totally right about either.

You may not know this, but a religious person can be an unbeliever. 2 Corinthians 4:3-4

Wait a minute now. Those verses refer to "them that are lost" and goes on to specifically say that they "believe not" (having been blinded by the "god of this world"). I don't doubt your general point, but those verses don't support it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just as behaviors can be unlearned, behaviors are learned.

It's sickening but we have this...

...as opposed to this...

...and this ...as opposed to... let's just say, the opposite.

Neither are examples of animals in their natural habitat doing what they have to do to survive
What should crocks do then? Not hunt an kill? Die of hunger?

This is a pretty stupid analogy to be honest.

Trained pets doing what they are trained to do vs animals in their natural habitat, doing what they naturally do.

Letting go of a priory commitment to men's ideas to fill the gaps, which they came up with, because they couldn't understand animal's behaviors, would allow you to think rationally, and with reasonableness.
Thus allowing you to see things in a practical way, and make sense of things.

You don't realize it yet, but I hope you will.
It's because of being indoctrinated with those men's ideas, that you see only one explanation.
You say this about Christians, but you don't see how it applies to you.

If animals were once peaceful - consider that possible... then something changed their behavior.
That behavior can be unlearned. (Isaiah 65:25)

Predators have pretty much always existed.
Sorry to burst your bubble.

Have you ever been to the house of an angry person who owns an animal, and the home of a gentle person who owns animals?

Again comparing pets in homes vs animals in their natural habitat.

I have, and the difference is evident.

And completely irrelevant to the point at hand.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

To @Nimos & @Alien826 & others ….
@nPeace said this:

“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.”

i think he meant “eventually” with each bullet point… just not at this time, while the issues concerning sovereignty and obedience, raised in Genesis 3, are being settled.

To have the issue of sovereignty resolved, would take time.
And it requires Jehovah to be absent while humans rule themselves. If Jehovah God stepped in every time to correct something bad that was happening, He would be weakening His side of the issue, namely, that we need His loving rulership over us.

i think time is proving man’s ineptness at ruling himself. Mankind’s greed & selfishness have already destroyed much of this planet, and it’s almost past the point of recovery.