There is no God

[Packrat]

How, exactly, did man cause cataracts, nearsightedness, farsightedness, colorblindness, and other problems with the eye?

Cataracts: Not sure yet

Nearsightedness: Depending on what type of vision you're born with - which comes from your parents (Man) - you may become nearsighted faster, slower, or not at all compared to other individuals depending on your habits (I would assume). I am nearsighted because I spend a great deal of time looking at things close up.

Farsightedness: Same thing as nearsightedness in principle. I think, though, most people are born farsighted. I've read that it is a lack of strength of eye muscles that cause you to see only things far away and not close up. I think we only have muscles to stretch the eye and not to contract it. Therefore we have to practice focusing on things close up to strengthen those muscles which stretch the eye and then allow you to focus well on things close up.

To correct nearsightedness I think you need to relax the eye. There are many exercises (some may work - others may not) that are out there for correcting nearsightedness.

Colorblindness: Who can say what caused this to begin with except genetics. We don't currently know what caused the genetic problem though. Cause and effect I suppose.

If these issues are caused by man, how did they find their way into every culture in every corner of the world?

Because man is in every culture in every corner of the world.

 

[Novum]

How, exactly, did man cause cataracts, nearsightedness, farsightedness, colorblindness, and other problems with the eye?

Cataracts: Not sure yet

Nearsightedness: Depending on what type of vision you're born with - which comes from your parents (Man) - you may become nearsighted faster, slower, or not at all compared to other individuals depending on your habits (I would assume). I am nearsighted because I spend a great deal of time looking at things close up.

Farsightedness: Same thing as nearsightedness in principle. I think, though, most people are born farsighted. I've read that it is a lack of strength of eye muscles that cause you to see only things far away and not close up. I think we only have muscles to stretch the eye and not to contract it. Therefore we have to practice focusing on things close up to strengthen those muscles which stretch the eye and then allow you to focus well on things close up.

To correct nearsightedness I think you need to relax the eye. There are many exercises (some may work - others may not) that are out there for correcting nearsightedness.

Colorblindness: Who can say what caused this to begin with except genetics. We don't currently know what caused the genetic problem though. Cause and effect I suppose.

If these issues are caused by man, how did they find their way into every culture in every corner of the world?

Because man is in every culture in every corner of the world.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that's quite what jive was getting at. He very specifically said that God created the eye perfectly and we only have problems with it today because of the actions of humans. I'm trying to find out from jive how humans were apparently able to overpower god and cause flaws in his otherwise perfect design.

 

[Packrat]

A minor nitpick, but notice that the thought experiment did not specify any physical characteristics - height, weight, hair color, or otherwise - about this woman.

An ambiguous answer for an ambiguous scenario. :wink:

Quote:
I conclude that the life you live depends on what motivation you give heed to. If you look for pleasure, you will live in more pain than if you were selfless and merely appreciated it when it came your way.

I do not agree that these two ends are mutually exclusive.

Ah. I'm not sure that they are either. But I'll refer you to the scenario of the prodigal son. There are three types of pleasure that I am readily aware of: 1. immoral, 2.moral, 3.neutral. Immoral pleasure (generally - note the word generally :-D ) would be incest, prostitution, alcoholic consumption (depending on your circumstance in life), etc. Moral pleasure would be enjoying helping someone or debating the existence of God online with some friends after school is out. *hint hint* :wink: Neutral pleasure would be playing a game or something similar.

I've noticed, though, that if I sometimes look for neutral pleasure even while I'm bored, I acquire short term psychological pain - in other words, I get even more bored, and lack of feeling wreeks havoc on my nerves (oddly enough). I seek some sort of stimulus when I should relax my mind and accept my current situation in life. Boredom, for me, is a lack of emotion - not a lack of things to do or to occupy my time. What follows then is the concern of whether or not neutral pleasure seeking in this instance is immoral in itself (thinking aloud again).

I'm not so sure I would agree that being pleasure-seeking completely prevents one from being selfless.

Actually pleasure may help to prepare one to be selfless or at least self-sacrificing. But if someone is suicidal, they may more readily jump out in front of a speeding car to save someone than someone who is caught up in enjoying this life. I'm not saying that to be selfless requires you to be suicidal (lol), I'm simply going to extremes to prove a point.

I would, however, alert you to your (repeated) use of the term "true Christian".

Perhaps you are right. Even though I adamantly believe in a 'true Christian' I may not know how to define one. I think the Bible has something to say on the matter of true Christians, but I have forgotten the passage. I may take some time to recall.

As to my last post on whether or not we cause our own suffering... I would say that we likely would have lived with God forever had we felt like living by his rules (ie. God warning in Genesis that we would die if we ate the 'fruit'). In other words he said, "If you want to live in this house, then you live by my rules." So we chose not to live according to his laws and we were rejected from him. The ground was 'cursed' at some point either before the creation of the world or at the point Man sinned. Therefore, since we rejected him, we had to live in the cursed parts of the world - away from his protection - to learn a very hard lesson. In other words, we screwed up royaly and he kicked us out into the storm. (Now because something is inhospitable does not mean that it is necessarily cursed. But for all purposes it was cursed in relation to humans because parts of the world are inhospitable (namely it's molten core). Space, though, is inhospitable to humans, but it is a very beautiful thing. My only concern here would then be if 'cursed' is referring to the hostility of some environment.)

Now's about the time in the story where your view, Novum, of genetic defects and not Man directly causing suffering would come into play. Of course this last part has little basis in the Bible (that I know of).

Sorry for any logic errors or mistranslations from thought to paper... :morning:

 

[Packrat]

And this is a false analogy - this world, and everything on it, did not "come into existence out of nothing".

This statement just sticks out to me because I thought that you were advocating the idea that Quantum Mechanics was saying that particles were appearing from nothingness or out of nowhere.

 

[Packrat]

Are tornadoes, hurricanes, and tidal waves 'perfect'? How about disease, death, and decay - I suppose those are part of this perfect order as well?

Cause and effect. When the environment suffers, it blows off steam. Physical death should mean little to the follower of God so that is negligble. Before I continue, though, let me ask you a question. What sort of death is bad? Is animal death bad? Is plant death bad? In Eden, wouldn't Adam have had to kill a living thing in order to eat it? Does this mean that there was death during that time? Was it bad? It doesn't seem so if God said it was good. So what sort of death is bad? Perhaps spiritual death of a sentient being? I don't pretend to know the answer. That's just something I'm putting out there.

Decay is actually very much necessary for physical life from what I've read. That does away with that. Tornadoes, hurricanes, and tidal waves are not morally imperfect in some way. Even fire can be used for good - just as a hurricane, tidal wave, or the like could be used for good or bad. One cannot argue that they are evil and therefore imperfect because 'they' do not have sentience and are not responsible for the effects of their behavior. The environment causes them and 'they' react. Whatever remains in their path finds itself in an unfortunate circumstance, but they are not to blame - the factors which cause them are. To claim that a tornadoe is imperfect because it kills is not like saying that a person is imperfect because they murder; they are two different things. A tornado may be a perfect tornado, but imperfect for human life to exist inside of it is what I assume you mean.

If someone accidentally finds themself out in space, they cannot say that space is imperfect. They can only say that it is not suitable for them (if they can say anything at all before they are simultaneously turned inside-out, baked and frozen).

The world is good. The world is beautiful - even its swamps and deserts - both harsh environments. It is not the world that should be on trial - nor the universe's harsher elements - but man's decisions. Falling away from God is not good. Distancing yourself from God's protection breeds imperfection since God is claimed to be perfect.

 

[Packrat]

I am not asking you to accept this as true, merely to accept the possibility.

Though I know that this statement is not directed at me, I accept, generally, all avenues of thought as possibilities, but not necessarily probabilities. If you can offer to me a good idea of the probability that we were created from matter which came from nothing as you seem to suggest and that life formed on this world by itself during whatever circumstances were taking place during its formation, then I will review the probability of it happening.

Here's a question: Which came first? Gasses to support plant life or gasses to support animal life? If they were both around when life first evolved, how was one source not depleted before animal life evolved to respire in order to produce carbonmonoxide? I'm not sure, but I think that there are some plants (maybe bacteria, mold, etc.) that can exist without carbondioxide or a gas to support them. Maybe. Maybe not.

 

[Packrat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Ah. Here's an article on it. I'll have to read up on it later though. I believe I have to go. Talk to you later.

 

[Packrat]

I find this interesting:

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... l#appendix

His conclusion is that the appendix serves a purpose in the immune system.

If you want me to post up a number of organs or parts of the body thought to be vestigial at some point but now are known to serve a purpose, then I will try my best to find the information. I had already found a list at some point prior to becoming a member of these forums. It shouldn't take too long to find it again.

 

[reznwerks]

how

I find this interesting:

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... l#appendix

His conclusion is that the appendix serves a purpose in the immune system.

If you want me to post up a number of organs or parts of the body thought to be vestigial at some point but now are known to serve a purpose, then I will try my best to find the information. I had already found a list at some point prior to becoming a member of these forums. It shouldn't take too long to find it again.

How does that article possibly hint at somehow debunking evolution. If something were first thought to be useless in the human body and then found to have some function then all it means is that they were wrong about the assumption.The bible often refers to the heart as we refer to the brain. Now if science found out the heart actually thinks and processes information then you might have a case. Remember whoever discovered the use was someone trained in the sciences. Thats what science does ,search for the truth.There is so much more evidence for evolution and if you look at the other posts of the past several weeks you would know the days of ID'rs and Yec'rs are numbered. They will be in that same group as the "flat earth society" and the Keepers of Odd Knowledge Society.

 

[reznwerks]

how

I find this interesting:

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... l#appendix

His conclusion is that the appendix serves a purpose in the immune system.

If you want me to post up a number of organs or parts of the body thought to be vestigial at some point but now are known to serve a purpose, then I will try my best to find the information. I had already found a list at some point prior to becoming a member of these forums. It shouldn't take too long to find it again.

How does that article possibly hint at somehow debunking evolution. If something were first thought to be useless in the human body and then found to have some function then all it means is that they were wrong about the assumption.The bible often refers to the heart as we refer to the brain. Now if science found out the heart actually thinks and processes information then you might have a case. Remember whoever discovered the use was someone trained in the sciences. Thats what science does ,search for the truth.There is so much more evidence for evolution and if you look at the other posts of the past several weeks you would know the days of ID'rs and Yec'rs are numbered. They will be in that same group as the "flat earth society" and the Keepers of Odd Knowledge Society.

 

[jive]

umm perfect: without flaw? and perfectly: perfect in motion, thats my deffanition for it anyway.
yes you said the eye wasnt perfect and listed a number of flaws.
i said the "flaws" are caused by man, to the eye. the flaws are not caused by the creator of the eye. and to say the eye could have "just accidentaly happen" is not very well thought out. the eye without the flaws man has caused, is perfect and way to ?intrucit?sp, and complicated, for all those parts to work together like they do and cause "vision"
i just wanted to clarify the diffrence between manmade problems with the eye and the eye the creator made. the main thought is of the intrucasy of the eye, and to say it "just accidentaly happend."

How, exactly, did man cause cataracts, nearsightedness, farsightedness, colorblindness, and other problems with the eye? If these issues are caused by man, how did they find their way into every culture in every corner of the world?
Did man also cause those other problems with the body I listed?

all you realy have to do is think about for a sec. your health depends on your diet, the air you breath, what your exposed too. the more things man gets there hands on they cause us to be unhealthy. the more plants that go up, the more polution, the more cars the more polution, the nastyer the air is that we breath, the more crap we eat, with all the additives in it the unhealthier we get. i read or hurd that the avrage american eats 160 pounds a year, of food additives. if you dont think that mans doings over the years had contributed to problems with health then theres not points to my post.

for example i read somewhere the country that smokes the most has the lowest cases of lung cancer. that dont make sinse dose it. i think it was japan or china. why are they smarter and healthier than the u.s.? because of there diet. the fish they eat are caught of the coast where there are no plants set up and no man made pollution. cataracts could be genetic, i dont know enough about cataracts itself to say anymore. i know why Sugar Ray got his cataracts, by getting his head knocked around. i did a report on him in like 5 grade.

just cause people are born with things dosnt mean god did it to them. could it not be genetic? a unhealthy parent maybee? unhealthy why? cause of crap in our diet and pollution, man made things. if you dont think thats possible then i have no argument.

 

[Packrat]

How does that article possibly hint at somehow debunking evolution.

It doesn't look like the purpose of it was to debunk evolution. It just looks like its purpose was to debunk the claim of bad design in the human body.

The bible often refers to the heart as we refer to the brain.

I think what you're referring to is the 'bad heart = evil person' scenario? Anyway, I heard something about this a long time ago, but I'm not going to say anything on this as I don't even remember exactly what the Bible is saying about it, what context it's taken in, and if there is any proof of its claims (which I don't remember of course what it claims - if anything). So, you'd have to look into that one. I'm not going to be available on the net for a very long time pretty soon (possibly after today) so I likely won't be able to research it in depth.

There is so much more evidence for evolution

I'm not against evolution. I'm against anyone suggesting that there is not a Creator or designer of even the evolutionary process. People change. Things change. Ok. That's great. I accept that because I know it to be true from experience. I don't know how legitimate it would be to claim that all life evolved from a single celled organism that resembled a plant's structure in nature and that this cell was created by random processes. It's conceivable, but I doubt it's probable.

It would be interesting, though, to see if we can develop a single celled organism in a lab. Since it was done already once before (since we are obviously here), I believe that we have the means to do it - not the experience or knowledge just yet though. I'm pretty sure people have tried to do it, but haven't gotten it right. It would be a tremendous and amazing thing to create even a one celled organism that can reproduce itself. How much more tremendous and astonishing would it be if there were only random factors without sentience involved?

 

[Packrat]

if you look at the other posts of the past several weeks you would know the days of ID'rs and Yec'rs are numbered

I might agree with you on YECs, but it's still conceivable that we are missing something or not accounting for something that would make the world and universe appear much younger. Such as the speed of light slowing perhaps? But then again I don't believe in that theory. Anyway, I doubt that IDs days will ever be 'numbered'. :wink:

Could you direct me to some of the posts that would imply that ID's days are over? I'll start looking for them at the moment. If you don't get back to me by today, then I might not be able to find them.

 

[Oats]

When I was an atheist, I used this on my hindu ex-girl friend: "I am god almighty. Prove me that I am not".

The conversation used to go something like this.
Her: god created the great universe.
Me: Well thank you. Glad you like it.
Her: You didnt create it.
Me: You have proof I didn't?
Her: Well you create something infront of me and I will believe.
Me: Actually, you show me your god who created the universe and I will show you that I am him.

To say that an atheist is wrong because he can't prove that a god doesn't exist is like saying my ex-gf was wrong and I am god because she couldn't prove otherwise.

Atheism is not always belief that there is no god but also unbelief for the lack of a personal proof that there is.

But

our God has provided proof...

the Universe

 

[abrown9]

Oats,

I think your God does not need proof. He needs faith. God is supernatural, and thus cannot be proved within the natural. Science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of god as it deals soley with the natural. The universe is the natural, which humans cannot comprehend beyond (regardless if there is more or not). What is found within the universe cannot prove or disprove God.

 

[Deavonreye]

Oats, . . . zombie-fying another thread?

Why not just start a new thread?

 

[Eyezup]

Questions????:help

If there is no God, would that mean that our existence and purpose are meaningless?

If there is no God, why does man seek to live a meaningful life?

If there is no God, What's the purpose of living?

Did the big bang occur on a Tuesday at 3pm and what caused it?

If there is no God, who assigns value to human life?

If there is no God, does Jared Lee Loughner (Arizona Shooter) assign value to human life? How about Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro or Mussolini?

If there is no God, why would Christians create a God that is so Holy and required things that could never be attained by any human being? Why not create an easily appeased deity?

If the Atheist of the 19th century have proven that God is dead, why are people still religious?

Are they serious about spontaneous generation or gradual spontaneous generation? Really????

 

[Scotth1960]

With all the talk about logic and pseudo intellectual posturing going on, I thought I bring this important point up.

The idea of atheism is logically false. For someone to claim to be an "atheist" they're claiming to know everything. You have to know everything [all things] to know there is no God and since the human mind is finite the atheist cannot know all things.

If you don't believe in God, what is the evidence for not believing? What logic are you using to come to this conclusion?

If you know there isn't a God, what is the evidence for knowing? Where's the proof?

I'd like to have a look at the evidence. If the atheist is able to disprove evidence for God, this doesn't mean God doesn't exist, only the proof presented was disproved. Logically, we cannot disprove God based on proof of God, you have to present proof that God doesn't exist.

Ok, I'm taking off. Back to my dusty theology books.

JM

Dear friend, It is correct to say, "There is no false god." Every believe in God, a theist, is an atheist of some sort. Christians do not believe in Zeus, Odin, Thor, Loki, Mars, Venus, or any other of the pagan "gods", Krishna, Vishnu, Brahma, or Shiva. Etc. These are false gods, and do not really exist, but, according to the Psalm, "all of the gods of the pagans (heathen) are demons". In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[Hawkins]

Oats,

I think your God does not need proof. He needs faith. God is supernatural, and thus cannot be proved within the natural. Science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of god as it deals soley with the natural. The universe is the natural, which humans cannot comprehend beyond (regardless if there is more or not). What is found within the universe cannot prove or disprove God.

That boils down to what is meant by "proved". You can't prove my existence, but still we can chat on the net on a daily basis. Faith sometimes is the reality.