God as craftsman

[A Vestigial Mote]

This is specifically in relation to arguments positing an intelligent god as creator, and more specifically intelligent-design arguments of the "watchmaker analogy" form. For anyone unfamiliar (probably not too many) this is a point quite often offered as a "proof" of God's existence in debates that goes something like this:

If you see a watch lying out somewhere, you realize there must have been a watchmaker, therefore, the universe/Earth/life being that much more complex than "a watch" indicates that there must also exist that same sort of creative, intelligent instantiator - i.e. "God".​

The analogy didn't sit well with me for more than just the obvious reasons - those being that it begs the question "with God being even more complex than all of it, then what/who created God?", and that the argument assumes that "God" is the only viable alternative to assume the "watchmaker" role.

Finally I realized an extra bit that left this explanation/analogy wanting for me: that being the idea of God being seen as a craftsman/artisan/artist. Indeed this is one of the first things people using the analogy turn to is how "beautiful" and "masterful" they feel the creation is.

Taking a watchmaker as the chosen analogous "avatar" for God (as the analogy itself surely does), my issues are these:

1. A true craftsman/artisan/artist (in this case, watchmaker) is tediously interested in making sure even his individual creations are perfected to as great a degree as he can muster. It is not as if others will accept his work if it is flawed. Could God experience this same sort of "pride" in the work He undertook to create humanity? According to the histories presented in religious tomes and even according to some of those religions very doctrines, I would say no. Many ideas point to humanity being a very flawed creation indeed. In fact, that each human being is born "flawed" is a major tenet of the Christian faith in particular.
2. A craftsman/artisan/artist would work to perfect his craft, and would pursue materials that best met his needs, would attempt leaving nothing to chance wherever possible and weed out all unnecessary/wasteful processes. Take something like the appendix within the human body - why is it there? We are perfectly capable of surviving without it, and it is known that a defect in this one piece can cause the death of the entire human being. WHY is it there? Definitely not the work of any Craftsman worth his salt in his craft. How about vestigial hip bones in whales? Forget the evolutionary implications, WHY are those there? To confuse and misdirect any observer who ended up finding them? Things like this are clearly wasted material.
3. A craftsman/artisan/artist would utilize the very best of the abilities that are available to him - why spare them? This is what makes a craftsman's work mean something to him, what gives him the ability to take pride in the work. The very best of his skill-set and faculty have been put to the task. Many views of God are that He possesses infinite faculty. Looking upon humanity as it stands today, could anyone argue that we, as His handiwork, have been given His very best attention in our crafting?

I'm not saying the human body itself isn't astounding/amazing - it is. However does anyone really believe that humans, as a whole, are the best that the God they believe in can do? Look at our societies, our social constructs - a direct result of the properties of our minds and "enhanced" intelligence. Can anyone argue that this feature (intelligence) - the one that distinguishes us the most from all other animals on this planet - is the best that it can be? When many individual human beings (creations) have personal issues that we attempt to medicate away? Perhaps the analogy to any sort of craftsman or artist is not such a good one to make. We probably fit better in an analogy where God it is a procrastinating high school student, and He stayed up until the wee hours of the morning tossing wads of paper into the trash instead of putting his nose to the grindstone, only to give up at 2 AM in favor of sleep. We're the homework assignment He couldn't be arsed to polish up.

And before anyone replies that God is not human and so is not bound by my human ideas - therefore negating my analogy's validity - just remember, some of you have likely used these same sorts of analogies in the past (certainly the watchmaker analogy is a perfect example) - and you may have done so because you believe yourself a witness for God, and in some way, guided by Him to say what you have said. Even God would have to admit that just because an analogy represents Him in a good light does not mean that it is more valid than one that represents Him in a poor light. No rational argument can be made to support that. And if making analogies to human concepts is such a bad/ignorant/nonsensical thing, then even the faithful should probably give up the practice.

 

[Kemosloby]

This is specifically in relation to arguments positing an intelligent god as creator, and more specifically intelligent-design arguments of the "watchmaker analogy" form. For anyone unfamiliar (probably not too many) this is a point quite often offered as a "proof" of God's existence in debates that goes something like this:

If you see a watch lying out somewhere, you realize there must have been a watchmaker, therefore, the universe/Earth/life being that much more complex than "a watch" indicates that there must also exist that same sort of creative, intelligent instantiator - i.e. "God".​

The analogy didn't sit well with me for more than just the obvious reasons - those being that it begs the question "with God being even more complex than all of it, then what/who created God?", and that the argument assumes that "God" is the only viable alternative to assume the "watchmaker" role.

Finally I realized an extra bit that left this explanation/analogy wanting for me: that being the idea of God being seen as a craftsman/artisan/artist. Indeed this is one of the first things people using the analogy turn to is how "beautiful" and "masterful" they feel the creation is.

Taking a watchmaker as the chosen analogous "avatar" for God (as the analogy itself surely does), my issues are these:

1. A true craftsman/artisan/artist (in this case, watchmaker) is tediously interested in making sure even his individual creations are perfected to as great a degree as he can muster. It is not as if others will accept his work if it is flawed. Could God experience this same sort of "pride" in the work He undertook to create humanity? According to the histories presented in religious tomes and even according to some of those religions very doctrines, I would say no. Many ideas point to humanity being a very flawed creation indeed. In fact, that each human being is born "flawed" is a major tenet of the Christian faith in particular.
2. A craftsman/artisan/artist would work to perfect his craft, and would pursue materials that best met his needs, would attempt leaving nothing to chance wherever possible and weed out all unnecessary/wasteful processes. Take something like the appendix within the human body - why is it there? We are perfectly capable of surviving without it, and it is known that a defect in this one piece can cause the death of the entire human being. WHY is it there? Definitely not the work of any Craftsman worth his salt in his craft. How about vestigial hip bones in whales? Forget the evolutionary implications, WHY are those there? To confuse and misdirect any observer who ended up finding them? Things like this are clearly wasted material.
3. A craftsman/artisan/artist would utilize the very best of the abilities that are available to him - why spare them? This is what makes a craftsman's work mean something to him, what gives him the ability to take pride in the work. The very best of his skill-set and faculty have been put to the task. Many views of God are that He possesses infinite faculty. Looking upon humanity as it stands today, could anyone argue that we, as His handiwork, have been given His very best attention in our crafting?

I'm not saying the human body itself isn't astounding/amazing - it is. However does anyone really believe that humans, as a whole, are the best that the God they believe in can do? Look at our societies, our social constructs - a direct result of the properties of our minds and "enhanced" intelligence. Can anyone argue that this feature (intelligence) - the one that distinguishes us the most from all other animals on this planet - is the best that it can be? When many individual human beings (creations) have personal issues that we attempt to medicate away? Perhaps the analogy to any sort of craftsman or artist is not such a good one to make. We probably fit better in an analogy where God it is a procrastinating high school student, and He stayed up until the wee hours of the morning tossing wads of paper into the trash instead of putting his nose to the grindstone, only to give up at 2 AM in favor of sleep. We're the homework assignment He couldn't be arsed to polish up.

And before anyone replies that God is not human and so is not bound by my human ideas - therefore negating my analogy's validity - just remember, some of you have likely used these same sorts of analogies in the past (certainly the watchmaker analogy is a perfect example) - and you may have done so because you believe yourself a witness for God, and in some way, guided by Him to say what you have said. Even God would have to admit that just because an analogy represents Him in a good light does not mean that it is more valid than one that represents Him in a poor light. No rational argument can be made to support that. And if making analogies to human concepts is such a bad/ignorant/nonsensical thing, then even the faithful should probably give up the practice.

When the watch and the watchmaker read Revelations they tremble and look for weak analogies to pick apart. Because:

Rev 10:6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, THAT THERE SHOULD BE TIME NO LONGER:

And a time is coming:

John 16:25 "Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Ok. So far you have only spoken about material creation and not spiritual or scientific laws or free will which all affect our world.

God created man perfect for what man was intended to be. He gave man a mind and conscience and even sent His Prophets and Messengers to offer us knowledge and wisdom and how to solve problems and move forward. But He gave us free will to choose our own path whether that be religious or materialistic or virtuous or greedy , the choice is ours.

If we make the wrong choice we suffer but learn. If we make the right choice and choose to follow God's laws we progress without having suffered but either way it's a win/win for us.

We don't know everything or why some parts of our anatomy don't seem to be used but that doesn't mean we won't discover this. The purpose of our lives here is to carry forward an ever advancing civilisation so in that respect God has created the perfect scenario for us to be able to,progress and advance both spiritually and scientifically.

And to top it off He sends us Teachers about once in a thousand years to give us fresh knowledge for the age we are living in.

We begin life on this earth as half spiritual half physical beings and evolve into purely spiritual beings and advance through many worlds of God not just this one.

To impute imperfection you would have to know what the Craftsman intended to craft. We only have some clues but as I said, He created all the perfect conditions for humanity to 'carry forward an ever advancing civilisation'. He created the perfect world for us to learn through 'trial and error'. He created the perfect world for us to learn whether our ways or His are best by allowing us to have world wars and suffer and not force us to choose His ways but to find out and choose for ourselves our path.

God's craftsmanship is perfect for what He intended. The concept that we are born flawed is not from God. It is the church's dogma. Christ, Buddha, Muhammad, Krishna, Moses, Zoroaster and Baha'u'llah never said we were born flawed. We were born pure and without sin.

We have been offered time and again, spiritual blessings that would help us each reach the full potential of what we could possibly be but we refuse these blessings which are the teachings of God. If we are sick and are given medicine but refuse to take it, then that is not the doctor's fault.

The world is working perfectly as it should be.

We should be in a mess and have wars and conflicts and suicides and violence if we are turning away from our spiritual life. If I stop eating and drinking I will die. The world has stopped eating spiritual food and is dying and as a consequence all these problems. World suffering is a natural mechanism like physical pain that tells us something is wrong with our bodies except world suffering is warning us that we are spiritually dying and the only choice is to turn back to spiritual ways. Until we do we will suffer.

If God created the world where hate and oppression were rewarded then we would never aspire to become like Him just and good.

The world is functioning exactly as it should according to our bad choices and decisions. And that is how a perfect Craftsman creates a scenario where 'an ever advancing civilisation' can evolve on its own, at its own pace through freedom of choice. God only offers Teachers to us and that's the beauty. Our fate is our own choice to make.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This is specifically in relation to arguments positing an intelligent god as creator, and more specifically intelligent-design arguments of the "watchmaker analogy" form. For anyone unfamiliar (probably not too many) this is a point quite often offered as a "proof" of God's existence in debates that goes something like this:

If you see a watch lying out somewhere, you realize there must have been a watchmaker, therefore, the universe/Earth/life being that much more complex than "a watch" indicates that there must also exist that same sort of creative, intelligent instantiator - i.e. "God".​

The analogy didn't sit well with me for more than just the obvious reasons - those being that it begs the question "with God being even more complex than all of it, then what/who created God?", and that the argument assumes that "God" is the only viable alternative to assume the "watchmaker" role.

Finally I realized an extra bit that left this explanation/analogy wanting for me: that being the idea of God being seen as a craftsman/artisan/artist. Indeed this is one of the first things people using the analogy turn to is how "beautiful" and "masterful" they feel the creation is.

Taking a watchmaker as the chosen analogous "avatar" for God (as the analogy itself surely does), my issues are these:

1. A true craftsman/artisan/artist (in this case, watchmaker) is tediously interested in making sure even his individual creations are perfected to as great a degree as he can muster. It is not as if others will accept his work if it is flawed. Could God experience this same sort of "pride" in the work He undertook to create humanity? According to the histories presented in religious tomes and even according to some of those religions very doctrines, I would say no. Many ideas point to humanity being a very flawed creation indeed. In fact, that each human being is born "flawed" is a major tenet of the Christian faith in particular.
2. A craftsman/artisan/artist would work to perfect his craft, and would pursue materials that best met his needs, would attempt leaving nothing to chance wherever possible and weed out all unnecessary/wasteful processes. Take something like the appendix within the human body - why is it there? We are perfectly capable of surviving without it, and it is known that a defect in this one piece can cause the death of the entire human being. WHY is it there? Definitely not the work of any Craftsman worth his salt in his craft. How about vestigial hip bones in whales? Forget the evolutionary implications, WHY are those there? To confuse and misdirect any observer who ended up finding them? Things like this are clearly wasted material.
3. A craftsman/artisan/artist would utilize the very best of the abilities that are available to him - why spare them? This is what makes a craftsman's work mean something to him, what gives him the ability to take pride in the work. The very best of his skill-set and faculty have been put to the task. Many views of God are that He possesses infinite faculty. Looking upon humanity as it stands today, could anyone argue that we, as His handiwork, have been given His very best attention in our crafting?

I'm not saying the human body itself isn't astounding/amazing - it is. However does anyone really believe that humans, as a whole, are the best that the God they believe in can do? Look at our societies, our social constructs - a direct result of the properties of our minds and "enhanced" intelligence. Can anyone argue that this feature (intelligence) - the one that distinguishes us the most from all other animals on this planet - is the best that it can be? When many individual human beings (creations) have personal issues that we attempt to medicate away? Perhaps the analogy to any sort of craftsman or artist is not such a good one to make. We probably fit better in an analogy where God it is a procrastinating high school student, and He stayed up until the wee hours of the morning tossing wads of paper into the trash instead of putting his nose to the grindstone, only to give up at 2 AM in favor of sleep. We're the homework assignment He couldn't be arsed to polish up.

And before anyone replies that God is not human and so is not bound by my human ideas - therefore negating my analogy's validity - just remember, some of you have likely used these same sorts of analogies in the past (certainly the watchmaker analogy is a perfect example) - and you may have done so because you believe yourself a witness for God, and in some way, guided by Him to say what you have said. Even God would have to admit that just because an analogy represents Him in a good light does not mean that it is more valid than one that represents Him in a poor light. No rational argument can be made to support that. And if making analogies to human concepts is such a bad/ignorant/nonsensical thing, then even the faithful should probably give up the practice.

If I had to try to explain the existence of a watch, while for some reason utterly forbidding any creative input at any stage of the process..

I might first propose

1. that the watch simply always existed, no creation = no creator (the static, eternal,models of the universe originally preferred by atheists)

Once we found a date of manufacture stamped on the watch, I might still argue that

2. this is a misleading observation, the watch is still actually eternal (Hoyle's steady state theory)

Once a specific creation event was established beyond reasonable doubt, I might then propose that

3. the watch created itself by some cyclical process (Hawking's Big Crunch)

Once this too was debunked, the last possible resort- the last possible way I could possibly account for the object being created without any ID- would be

4. some sort of infinite probability machine that could produce literally anything accidentally (multiverse)

-- oh wait, anything except a watchmaker... oops!


The watchmaker is the argument that has kept on ticking despite a century of attempts to break it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

When the watch and the watchmaker read Revelations they tremble and look for weak analogies to pick apart. Because:

Rev 10:6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, THAT THERE SHOULD BE TIME NO LONGER:

And a time is coming:

John 16:25 "Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father.

In posting what I did, I was also trying to point out to you that analogies are weak to begin with. Therefore, the watchmaker analogy itself is an extremely weak argument - just as you propose that mine is weak. I am perfectly fine with admitting that my chosen analogies are weak arguments that do not prove or disprove anything. Are you willing/able to make the same admittance?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The world is working perfectly as it should be.

We should be in a mess and have wars and conflicts and suicides and violence if we are turning away from our spiritual life. If I stop eating and drinking I will die. The world has stopped eating spiritual food and is dying and as a consequence all these problems. World suffering is a natural mechanism like physical pain that tells us something is wrong with our bodies except world suffering is warning us that we are spiritually dying and the only choice is to turn back to spiritual ways. Until we do we will suffer.

If God created the world where hate and oppression were rewarded then we would never aspire to become like Him just and good.

The world is functioning exactly as it should according to our bad choices and decisions. And that is how a perfect Craftsman creates a scenario where 'an ever advancing civilisation' can evolve on its own, at its own pace through freedom of choice. God only offers Teachers to us and that's the beauty. Our fate is our own choice to make.

You yourself state that the world is not in a good position. Does He take pride in the human race as His creation, do you think? And if not, if it is something less than desirable, does He not have the means to help it along? Is He supposedly already doing this? And if so... doesn't that somewhat negate the "perfect" ideal of free-will? And if He is not, then does He truly care?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If I had to try to explain the existence of a watch, while for some reason utterly forbidding any creative input at any stage of the process..

I might first propose

1. that the watch simply always existed, no creation = no creator (the static, eternal,models of the universe originally preferred by atheists)

Once we found a date of manufacture stamped on the watch, I might still argue that

2. this is a misleading observation, the watch is still actually eternal (Hoyle's steady state theory)

Once a specific creation event was established beyond reasonable doubt, I might then propose that

3. the watch created itself by some cyclical process (Hawking's Big Crunch)

Once this too was debunked, the last possible resort- the last possible way I could possibly account for the object being created without any ID- would be

4. some sort of infinite probability machine that could produce literally anything accidentally (multiverse)

-- oh wait, anything except a watchmaker... oops!


The watchmaker is the argument that has kept on ticking despite a century of attempts to break it.

None of what you posted truly matters in the long run. They are all only suppositions... just as the stance that God created it all is... or that there was any instantiating creator/creative process involved. The world is not a watch. It does not function according to specifically placed, "machined" parts. It is organic, and ever changing. It doesn't need an intervening hand to "wind it up". The pieces are not polished and shined up, perfectly symmetrical, or even aesthetically pleasing. In so many ways it is nothing like a watch.

In the end, that there exists a placement away from a start by which a planet may sustain life, and there there exist configurations of matter that support and are called "alive" only means one thing... that those things are possible given the matter and functioning of the universe. Anything else is a guess until there is some real evidence to back it up.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

None of what you posted truly matters in the long run. They are all only suppositions... just as the stance that God created it all is... or that there was any instantiating creator/creative process involved. The world is not a watch. It does not function according to specifically placed, "machined" parts. It is organic, and ever changing. It doesn't need an intervening hand to "wind it up". The pieces are not polished and shined up, perfectly symmetrical, or even aesthetically pleasing. In so many ways it is nothing like a watch.

That was certainly the prevailing mindset 150 years ago, when a handful of simple 'immutable' laws could account for all physical reality, when concepts of mysterious underlying instructions and guiding forces, specifically determining precisely how physical reality and life would organize itself- were still considered 'religious pseudoscience'

i.e. long before Quantum Mechanics, subatomic physics, DNA, the engineering behind reality that makes the mere clockworks of a watch look decidedly dull and crude.

In the end, that there exists a placement away from a start by which a planet may sustain life, and there there exist configurations of matter that support and are called "alive" only means one thing... that those things are possible given the matter and functioning of the universe. Anything else is a guess until there is some real evidence to back it up.

I'd agree, we are all taking our best guesses, and we all believe, have faith in something.

But I don't think we are without evidence. Validated predictions are a form of evidence

Had any of those above atheist predictions been validated, I'd have happily accepted their implication. I'm also willing to accept the opposite implication, that of observed reality.

 

[Kemosloby]

In posting what I did, I was also trying to point out to you that analogies are weak to begin with. Therefore, the watchmaker analogy itself is an extremely weak argument - just as you propose that mine is weak. I am perfectly fine with admitting that my chosen analogies are weak arguments that do not prove or disprove anything. Are you willing/able to make the same admittance?

I agree, I believe the point the scriptures was making is that all analogies are weak compared to him telling us bluntly, and in no uncertain terms. So Jesus used all analogies so that people could beat around the burning bush a little and decide for themselves, it would seem.

 

[George-ananda]

This is specifically in relation to arguments positing an intelligent god as creator, and more specifically intelligent-design arguments of the "watchmaker analogy" form. For anyone unfamiliar (probably not too many) this is a point quite often offered as a "proof" of God's existence in debates that goes something like this:

I think where I disagree is in that you are assuming what God's purpose is; to create perfection of physical design. In my view the physical world is a place where souls experience joys and sufferings to advance their wisdom and realize the value of love. Physical life is advanced through evolution with all the hitches and bumps along the way.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I think where I disagree is in that you are assuming what God's purpose is; to create perfection of physical design. In my view the physical world is a place where souls experience joys and sufferings to advance their wisdom and realize the value of love. Physical life is advanced through evolution with all the hitches and bumps along the way.

And that point of view I actually agree with... that the "perfect" situation for humans is the one that includes many of these imperfections. Basically, the reality we are presented with, for the most part.

Though even if this was His (God's) chosen "perfect" situation for us, and we are perfectly built to inhabit this arena of life, living, provocation and thought... then why call us imperfect in the first place? Why say that we are born broken and will only truly be whole when reunited with God himself? Aren't we perfect as we stand? As He created us? Granted, this is not every theistic "ultimate" outcome, I understand that. Though most for which it isn't wouldn't be making the watchmaker analogy in he first place.

 

[pearl]

And if making analogies to human concepts is such a bad/ignorant/nonsensical thing, then even the faithful should probably give up the practice.

The human being is not an inanimate object as the watch or any other object that man can craft. The one flaw in creation is free will, again which the 'watch' does not posses. Think of listening to your favorite music, whether a symphony or rock group. If the instruments are not in tune or the timing is off, the result is disunity, sour notes, certainly not what the composer had in mind.





Where Mystery is concerned, analogy is helpful. Without using analogy, tell me what love is.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

That was certainly the prevailing mindset 150 years ago, when a handful of simple 'immutable' laws could account for all physical reality, when concepts of mysterious underlying instructions and guiding forces, specifically determining precisely how physical reality and life would organize itself- were still considered 'religious pseudoscience'

i.e. long before Quantum Mechanics, subatomic physics, DNA, the engineering behind reality that makes the mere clockworks of a watch look decidedly dull and crude.

I will agree that the devices behind a watches function are incredibly crude when compare to the intricacies and grand-sweeping function of something like DNA. However, that still doesn't make DNA machined, fabricated, hand-crafted or anything of the sort. It is still an organic device - it can never be witnessed being "used" by a maker, it moves and interacts with the universe around it without the need of the hand of a craftsman. It is not robotic in function or form, and it has no need for specific and exacting definition, as it takes many forms as the life it supports requires. It is different from any "engineered" object in existence in leaps and bounds... and yet we still attempt to box it and the rest of it up and compare it to a watch - to which it bears no resemblance.

I'd agree, we are all taking our best guesses, and we all believe, have faith in something.

But I don't think we are without evidence. Validated predictions are a form of evidence

Had any of those above atheist predictions been validated, I'd have happily accepted their implication. I'm also willing to accept the opposite implication, that of observed reality.

We do all choose what to believe, and it is a form of faith, because who truly knows? But I take a completely different stance on what is "observed reality". It wasn't so long ago that humans considered that the world must be flat because of many of the aspects of the world they could "observe" from their meager perspective. There will always be those looking to validate their predictions/theories. It may always be only matter of time before the next paradigm-shattering discovery.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The human being is not an inanimate object as the watch or any other object that man can craft. The one flaw in creation is free will, again which the 'watch' does not posses. Think of listening to your favorite music, whether a symphony or rock group. If the instruments are not in tune or the timing is off, the result is disunity, sour notes, certainly not what the composer had in mind.





Where Mystery is concerned, analogy is helpful. Without using analogy, tell me what love is.

Love is knowing a person to the point that you give, protect and do everything else in your power to secure the stability of your relationship with them.

Did I pass the test?

I agree that analogy is a fairly useful tool - in emotional discourse. However where it falls short is exactly where I put its limits. You can't logically accept all "positive" analogies and reject all "negative" ones pointed at a given subject. The street has to work both ways or you have basically admit failure from the get-go.

 

[George-ananda]

And that point of view I actually agree with... that the "perfect" situation for humans is the one that includes many of these imperfections. Basically, the reality we are presented with, for the most part.

Though even if this was His (God's) chosen "perfect" situation for us, and we are perfectly built to inhabit this arena of life, living, provocation and thought... then why call us imperfect in the first place? Why say that we are born broken and will only truly be whole when reunited with God himself? Aren't we perfect as we stand? As He created us? Granted, this is not every theistic "ultimate" outcome, I understand that. Though most for which it isn't wouldn't be making the watchmaker analogy in he first place.

Things are perfect, but the challenge of life is to realize it; Self-Realization is the goal. It is ignorance that makes us feel imperfect.

 

[loverofhumanity]

You yourself state that the world is not in a good position. Does He take pride in the human race as His creation, do you think? And if not, if it is something less than desirable, does He not have the means to help it along? Is He supposedly already doing this? And if so... doesn't that somewhat negate the "perfect" ideal of free-will? And if He is not, then does He truly care?

He loves us immensely as He created us. And He wants us to love Him but love cannot be forced. It must come from the heart.

So He sends us His Messengers and Prophets 'offering' us wisdom, knowledge and guidance to assist us. But then it's up to us. He doesn't interfere apart from sending His Representative about every thousand years.

Baha'u'llah pleaded with the rulers and kings of the world to unite but they all dismissed His call and since then we've had two world wars, a holocaust and much suffering and it hasn't ended.

The world is as it should be. 'What we sow we reap'. This is a world of karma. It is up to us how we use our time here. We are the ones who stand to gain or lose in the next world and worlds after according to what we sow.

 

[pearl]

Love is knowing a person to the point that you give, protect and do everything else in your power to secure the stability of your relationship with them.

This tells more how one responds to love, not what it is. I think the use of analogy applies to one's experiences. Both the love and wrath of God is thought to be the experience of those wrote them. Everything was seen as God's action, if their lives were good, they 'pleased, God, if not, it was due to God's punishment.

 

[loverofhumanity]

This tells more how one responds to love, not what it is. I think the use of analogy applies to one's experiences. Both the love and wrath of God is thought to be the experience of those wrote them. Everything was seen as God's action, if their lives were good, they 'pleased, God, if not, it was due to God's punishment.

This is a definition of love you might find useful? Offered humbly!

Bahá'í Reference Library - Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Pages 27-28

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I will agree that the devices behind a watches function are incredibly crude when compare to the intricacies and grand-sweeping function of something like DNA.

Okay, duly noted, but we can't agree on too much, what fun is that?

it can never be witnessed being "used" by a maker, it moves and interacts with the universe around it without the need of the hand of a craftsman.

Does this refer to a watch? or physics, or life,? or a car? or a software program?

all of the above

We do all choose what to believe, and it is a form of faith, because who truly knows? But I take a completely different stance on what is "observed reality". It wasn't so long ago that humans considered that the world must be flat because of many of the aspects of the world they could "observe" from their meager perspective. There will always be those looking to validate their predictions/theories. It may always be only matter of time before the next paradigm-shattering discovery.

I think we have some common ground then, likewise it's not so long ago that people considered classical physics adequate, the universe to be eternal, the biological cell to be a simple machine- moving beyond these all shattered deeply coveted paradigms.

And we were born in a fascinating age of discovery; my father was brought up with his fathers's beliefs as above, and I was raised a staunch atheist on that prevailing naturalist mindset. which stemmed from a Victorian age understanding of science.

Which perspective is the fallacy? Depends on the ultimate truth does it not? And can we agree that we don't know yet what that is?

i.e. there is no 'default' truth, no reference for how a universe/ life is 'usually' created.

Any explanation must stand on it's own merits.

 

[loverofhumanity]

God is the Master Craftsman because only He can bring something into existence. We can copy, clone, reproduce but not bring anything into existence.

Notice that when a species becomes extinct whether an animal or flower, unless we have a seed, we cannot bring it back. So what initially brought it into existence? The Master Craftsman combined the elements in such a way that the now extinct species would appear. He was able to do it but once extinct we can't bring it back. Maybe in the future we will be able to through DNA ?

In the end God is our Master. We had no say in whether we wanted to be born or not and we have no say in living past a certain age. Birth and death and puberty have all been set and ingrained in us. So there are a lot of us asking just what are we doing here? Why do we have to die and what's the point of life?

We get some 'snippets' but they don't answer a lot of things. God has everything what could He possibly want from us?
The only thing I've been able to come up after reading from Baha'u'llah, is that God wants to share His powers, His virtues and everything about Himself with someone so He created us.

There are many blessings He wants to give us. Knowledge and science and a mind and the gift of understanding are some of His greatest gifts. Then there are things like the earthly pleasantries and earthly enjoyments and He will continue to shower blessings on us in the next world.

My humble understanding is God created humanity to be able to have someone to share Himself with. Someone to love and treasure. And that is why I understand we are here.