Human body is the best God can do?

[Violet]

The human body is a very weak and poorly designed organism in so many ways. It either leads us to believe God didn’t love us or he wanted us to suffer.

*Saerules puts on her sexy theist hat and smiles*

I'm actually with fr0d0 on this one. Just what do you mean "Very weak and poorly designed"...? Some aspects of our designs could have been "better" in some circumstances... but why would these necessarily be the circumstances that 'God' created us for...

Further why couldn't he have accomplished his goals via what we call "evolution"?

… Or does it support the theory of evolution by means of natural selection?

Is anymore evidence truly needed to discredit the former?

It neither supports nor detracts from it.

Evidence capable of combating the former is not possible. Evidence to support the former is not possible. It would totally ruin the point of needing faith if conclusive evidence (see: scientific proof) could be found regarding 'God'

[Fluké]

I'm astonished that you presume to understand how this God creates things!

where did I say that?

You implied it when you said:

a perfect being could only make something less perfect than itself

[Violet]

That would be him making himself

are you saying that God's windpipe and esophagus run different tubes? are you saying that God doesn't starve or take a shit? I can't believe people describe something so poorly understood, something that's only vaguely described, a god, as 'perfect'. How could you expect anything after death when all you know is our dependency on matter?

Why would 'God' have a windpipe or esophagus? Silly flying skeptic

Starving would necessitate a need for nutrients. Why would 'God' not be self sufficient?

Shitting assumes that there is waste within 'God'... why would there be waste in 'God'?

That we don't know what is "perfect" and thus argue against a 'God' being so is an argument from ignorance.

Actually... we now a lot of things (doesn't mean we're right though). I suppose it's rather a matter of faith to expect something after death

---

Hmmmm.... maybe "God" is a dolphin?

*Takes off sexy theist hat, pulls on sexy bathing suit, and laughs*

No way... dolphins are just too cool

*Puts a saddle on a dolphin, evolves a dolphin's lung capacity, and goes for a ride*

[Fluké]

*Saerules puts on her sexy theist hat and smiles*

I'm actually with fr0d0 on this one. Just what do you mean "Very weak and poorly designed"...? Some aspects of our designs could have been "better" in some circumstances... but why would these necessarily be the circumstances that 'God' created us for...

Further why couldn't he have accomplished his goals via what we call "evolution"?

Hello there!

If you observe the human body, it isn't that well designed. We are so easily damages by the environment. Whether it is trees or UV rays ... we have limited senses (and those senses are also limited) ... our organs are susceptible to failure and thousands of thousands of us die from microbes etc ...

The human body is still in the process of evolving.

It neither supports nor detracts from it.

Evidence capable of combating the former is not possible. Evidence to support the former is not possible. It would totally ruin the point of needing faith if conclusive evidence (see: scientific proof) could be found regarding 'God'

I agree that the whole essence of faith is an absence of evidence, but surely the existence of anything (it doesn't have to be God) should be subject to the normal procedures we place on everything else. That is to say, empirical evidence.

[Violet]

And weren't we supposedly made in "his image"? In any case, couldn't this deity create a body for us that didn't have such an obvious design flaw?

"His image" could mean a number of things.

If we take the definition of image to mean "a representation of the external form of a person or thing in sculpture, painting, etc."... then one might not wonder if he made us in his image in regards to our consciousness?

It is never said we were made perfect... only that we were made in his image. (And if 'God' is imperfect: then this is all the more true )

---

a perfect being could only make something less perfect than itself

What is perfection anyway?

I know I'm a very imperfect being... but i can make things much more "perfect" (in my opinion) than myself (ie: music). Why could not the same be said of 'God'?

[fr0d0]

The human body is still in the process of evolving.

And also continually adapting to its environment. Evolving needn't imply 'perfecting'. Just sayin'.

I agree that the whole essence of faith is an absence of evidence, but surely the existence of anything (it doesn't have to be God) should be subject to the normal procedures we place on everything else. That is to say, empirical evidence.

The requirement of empirical evidence in this case would be illogical. You can't demand that everything follows a common rule.

[Violet]

*Saerules puts on her sexy theist hat and smiles*

I'm actually with fr0d0 on this one. Just what do you mean "Very weak and poorly designed"...? Some aspects of our designs could have been "better" in some circumstances... but why would these necessarily be the circumstances that 'God' created us for...

Further why couldn't he have accomplished his goals via what we call "evolution"?

Hello there!

If you observe the human body, it isn't that well designed. We are so easily damages by the environment. Whether it is trees or UV rays ... we have limited senses (and those senses are also limited) ... our organs are susceptible to failure and thousands of thousands of us die from microbes etc ...

The human body is still in the process of evolving.

And welcome to the forum, Fluke

Come to the dark side, Fluke...

Anyway... that we are easily damaged by the environment (and assuming we were designed in the first place) suggests we were not designed with the intent of being strong in our environment. To which I disagree to an extent... our weakness in our environment has necessitated that we seek things such as shelter (and 'cover', see: clothes), society, and ways to otherwise protect ourselves and each other from the dangers in our environment. In other words: 'God' didn't make us invincible, because then why would we even consider scientific and cooperative pursuits? Necessity is the mother of invention...

Our sense are limited so that we are not 1: invincible, 2: no longer need of studying science to overcome our limited ability to perceive the world 'He' created for us, 3: Bananas are delicious, even if they are kleptomaniac bastards- *chomp*- manf fhahs mah fheh- *gulp* -points.

Our body being capable of failing (and eventually dying) necessitates firstly that until we achieve a certain scientific level: we will not have the capacity to never die. Hence governments that can keep their people alive longer and healthier are destined to do better. Further... the more medically advanced a society is: the slower people's bodies fail, the less of them that can't be helped in some way or another, and the healthier the people will on average be. So there's all sorts of good things that arise scientifically from this

Microbe's ability to kill us is related to the above... and further necessitates that we advance in that area of medicinal sciences to cure them and not die from them as much

Essentially: why would any of these be at all negative if the intent of 'God' was to gently guide us into space?

It neither supports nor detracts from it.

Evidence capable of combating the former is not possible. Evidence to support the former is not possible. It would totally ruin the point of needing faith if conclusive evidence (see: scientific proof) could be found regarding 'God'

I agree that the whole essence of faith is an absence of evidence, but surely the existence of anything (it doesn't have to be God) should be subject to the normal procedures we place on everything else. That is to say, empirical evidence.

It is not necessarily an absence of evidence... just an absence of provability

And no... it isn't certain at all. For all we can prove... the universe came into being not half a second ago, and will be deleted again within the next minute. Empirical evidence is just that which we can form an observable (to us) consensus of (and if I were a solipsist, I might say "and gives the illusion of an inter-subjective existence")... why can't some things be non-empirical? My thoughts, as of now... are non-empirical. One day in the future they might not be... but for now I can tell you at least one non-empirical thing that exists (or at least, is non-empirical (to us) to the extent of my knowledge)

---

I agree that the whole essence of faith is an absence of evidence, but surely the existence of anything (it doesn't have to be God) should be subject to the normal procedures we place on everything else. That is to say, empirical evidence.

The requirement of empirical evidence in this case would be illogical. You can't demand that everything follows a common rule.

Can to! But demanding a thing doesn't make one "right"

And if we do suppose that everything is empirical (for the sake of argument)... even then that doesn't mean we can verify it now and today. Was the existence of microbes empirical to the ancient Greeks? And if (as by the sake of argument above) it was: why would that mean that we can verify it as of now?

[KichigaiNeko]

Bananas!! So THAT is your secret Sae??

I too have recently developed a love Bananas, and (thanks for the warning) will be keeping the kleptomaniacal bastards tied up in my kitchen!!

Excellent points raised but still doesn't support humans as being anything more "special" than a microbe.

Still pissed off that the playground is in the sewers!!

[fr0d0]

What is perfection anyway?

I know I'm a very imperfect being... but i can make things much more "perfect" (in my opinion) than myself (ie: music). Why could not the same be said of 'God'?

We are all very imperfect Music is less perfect than you because it's so limited. It's just music... a lesser entity than you: Saerules - one HELL of an entity

And if we do suppose that everything is empirical (for the sake of argument)... even then that doesn't mean we can verify it now and today. Was the existence of microbes empirical to the ancient Greeks? And if (as by the sake of argument above) it was: why would that mean that we can verify it as of now?

We're guessing at a few things in science now... but those things would be in the empirical realm, somehow, otherwise science would have no interest. We're just waiting for the capacity to observe. With a logical impossibility, there is no wait. Science will be waiting for proof of God for ever!

[Zen Badger]

So Zen



Is everything you do more complex than yourself?



No



so your theory fails



a perfect being could only make something less perfect than itself



God is at the top of the tree



he doesn't create things bigger and better than himself



or equal to him



thanks

As i said complex is not the same as better(or perfect)

Even if he doesn't create something more complex than himself

It should by definition be perfect, how can a "perfect" being do anything else.

And if your god is capable of anything why can't he create something more complex than himself?