Human body is the best God can do?

[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?