God and evil

[Winter wind]

Quote by: freefallife So, these viruses were introduced to teach us how to create their respective vaccines? Why? We would never have to learn to cure all these devastating diseases at the cost of so much human life if god hadn't created them to begin with. We could focus our efforts on far better things in the world. I can only imagine where we might be if we didn't have to commit so many resources to erradicate these diseases.

I'm currently sitting in a Swiss airport, waiting to go home from my week long ski trip, and am on a wifi connection that is literally called "hidden" so this may come out as gibberish for any number of reasons.

I've looked at the entire post, not just the segment quoted above, and I understand your argument as follows.

"there needs to be evil in the world, but why so much?"

My argument is that no matter how much evil there is in the world, once you get used to that amount, it will always seem to be too much.

As for vaccines...no matter how much evil you find in this world, there seems to always be a method of making that evil lesser. Most of the time to the point of vanishing it. Yes, deadly illness are not great, but they are part of the world we live in. How would you create symbiosis and not create parasites that kill it's host? That's what infections are. Evolution without genetic defects? The reason we have these is the way our universe was created. It's the logic that makes it. So how would you eliminate the above without destroying the logic of the universe? God created the logic, but arguing about how he could have changed the logic is...more then slightly difficult.

(at least we don't have the T-Virus, from Resident Evil, in anything beyond our imaginations)

The cold war ended, and now we fight a far more deadly war against a far more aggressive enemy that has actually cost us the lives of several thousand.

Terrorism? That wasn't there already? Americans have only payed attention since 9-11-2001, but terrorism was around before that. It's been there since assassins killed crusaders.

Civil rights has been successful? Are you really going to try to maintain that discrimination is dead?

Aw come on! Discrimination may not be dead, but woe betide the man who so much utters a racist comment in the wrong area. No more slavery and no more legal racism (debatable on a certain level, but mostly true.). This is a process that is getting better. Not just in America, globally as well.

For every evil you list that we have overcome, I can probably list 2 that have taken its place.

bring it.

So, god created earthquakes so we could become better architects? Could we not have learned the same lesson without the deaths of so many? Would we not still be fighting to cure cancer even if it didn't cause painful deaths?

Q1: God created earthquakes so that continents could move.
Q2: It would have taken longer as we would have been more complacent.
Q3: Not as hard. Curing cancer could mean curing aging as well (controlling cell aging). This is how great breakthroughs happen, when there is a great incentive (free market and everything).

Im not saying that there should be NO evil. Im stating, as you seem to agree, that there is currently too much. So, if god knows the line, why would he not then therefore set it there? Why not less death?

Because no matter where the line is, whether death camps or fuzzy bunnies are the norm, it will always seem there is too much evil. The only way to solve this is to eradicate it which we agree is bad. It is that feeling you have is the human drive (or maybe just the good humans) to push that line as much as possible and lessen evil in the world.

See above. An omnipotent god should be able to accomplish anything with fewer needless, painful deaths. He could have programed us with an automatic appreciation of life and therefore not have to cause death to teach us that lesson. Besides, don't we kill ourselves enough? Why would he feel that he had to add to it?

To the see above...I need something more specific.
To the rest...This may be the best point you have made so far. Why not pre-program an appreciation for life? Well we have been preprogrammed to some extent. To appreciate our own life. The rest is the humans growth. Society teaches to appreciate other's lives (mostly).

The answer is basically the same as to why evil needs to exist to some extent. So that we can overcome it. The growth.
So we aren't preprogrammed completely so that we can grow. program it ourselves.

As for those last two questions. The real question you should be asking is why we should be killing each other when we already have all these lethal puzzles God throws at us?

Your argument fails to justify any evil of which I do not choose.

Nice (I get to say that since it wasn't my argument.)

Refuting my argument by directing me to posts I did not create is a rather poor debate tactic, to say the least. You linked a post by darts...not me. Try again.

Wait. I think that was on purpose. Use the post as a response to what you wrote. If that doesn't work then...well just ignore it then.

(My internet is dying so I'm not sure what the post was)

[freefallife]

Quote by: Winter wind My argument is that no matter how much evil there is in the world, once you get used to that amount, it will always seem to be too much.

Your argument fails in the face of an omnipotent god. This all-powerful god could have created us with a certain desireable set level of suffering. We would never complain of too much suffering because he would have had us designed to accept what little there was. Furthermore, this system would save countless lives. That would be the act of a loving god. To see to it that only those that NEEDED to suffer would, and no more. The simple fact that we feel there is too much in the world is evidence that it is not this way, and therefore very inefficient. What horrifies me about the god that you worship is that he is wastefull with the well-being of his creations.

As for vaccines...no matter how much evil you find in this world, there seems to always be a method of making that evil lesser. Most of the time to the point of vanishing it. Yes, deadly illness are not great, but they are part of the world we live in.

They are a part of the world we live in for no apparent reason when we factor in a loving god. He creates viruses so that we can learn to cure them? Why? Does god need better doctors in heaven? This is not a valid justification. We wouldn't need to learn to cure them if he didn't create them in the first place.

In the words of Woody Allen, "If god wants to test us, why doesn't he just give us the written?"

Imagine a god that was REALLY a part of your life. That actually taught us lessons in person. Say he held a class every week or so in the middle of the night while you were in a dream state. Every human on earth would experience this, making the existance of god more than evident. We would all have a personal relationship with god, which is what the bible states he wants. We would all still have the free will to follow his teachings. No. Instead, this omnipotent god is invisible and tortures us.

How would you create symbiosis and not create parasites that kill it's host?

Easy. You don't. Create symbiosis and the DON'T create harmfull parasites. Pretty small accomplishment for an omnipotent god. What makes you think that you can't have symbiosis and not disease causing viruses?

Evolution without genetic defects?

God created evolution? Completely rediculous. That is unless you believe that Adam and Eve were apes. Even so, how about NOT creating HARMFUL genetic defects. There would still be evolution, but no suffering. Hey, if I can think of it....

The reason we have these is the way our universe was created. It's the logic that makes it. So how would you eliminate the above without destroying the logic of the universe? God created the logic, but arguing about how he could have changed the logic is...more then slightly difficult.

As I said. He's omnipotent. He could have created ANY system of life he chose. The problem is that he also loves us unconditionaly. So why would an omnibenevolent god CHOOSE to create a world the very foundations of which rest on the shoulders of death and are bathed in the blood of innocents?

(at least we don't have the T-Virus, from Resident Evil, in anything beyond our imaginations)

Hey, don't give God any ideas....

Terrorism? That wasn't there already? Americans have only payed attention since 9-11-2001, but terrorism was around before that. It's been there since assassins killed crusaders. Aw come on! Discrimination may not be dead, but woe betide the man who so much utters a racist comment in the wrong area. No more slavery and no more legal racism (debatable on a certain level, but mostly true.). This is a process that is getting better. Not just in America, globally as well. bring it.

Responding to this is not for this thread. There's evil...theres too much. We've already established that.

Q1: God created earthquakes so that continents could move.

And an omnipotent god couldn't have created continental plates that move with less friction?

Q2: It would have taken longer as we would have been more complacent.

If it means relieving the pain and suffering in the world, who cares how long it would take?

Q3: Not as hard. Curing cancer could mean curing aging as well (controlling cell aging). This is how great breakthroughs happen, when there is a great incentive (free market and everything).

Again. Who cares? It would mean the reduction of pain. And why did he even create it in the first place? He needs oncologists in heaven?

The answer is basically the same as to why evil needs to exist to some extent. So that we can overcome it. The growth. So we aren't preprogrammed completely so that we can grow. program it ourselves.

This argument is invalidated with the existance of any evil which we cannot overcome. I don't think I have to provide a list, but if you can't think of any, let me know.

The real question you should be asking is why we should be killing each other when we already have all these lethal puzzles God throws at us?

Sure. Wait, why is a loving god throwing LETHAL PUZZLES at us again? Its almost like me tossing crowd control grenades into my daughters bedroom. Gee, hope she figures out how to overcome these! Now that wouldn't be very loving would it?

[Winter wind]

Quote by: freefallife This argument is invalidated with the existance of any evil which we cannot overcome. I don't think I have to provide a list, but if you can't think of any, let me know.

This seems to be the crux of our arguments, so I'll start with this.
I do think that there is evil we can't overcome with what we have now. But I think, over time, we will be able to eliminate our current evils. There is always a time during a puzzle where it is impossible to instantly undo it. After a while of poking and prodding, the answer becomes clearer and obtainable. All evil can be overcome if given time.

However, an argument is, if you are falling from a building and are going to die no matter what, that is an evil impossible to overcome. You don't have the time to call for help.

My response is growth as a human race means human race as a whole could overcome such a problem. Plus, being Christian, I believe that death is not the end. The man falling from the roof of a building would be able to get what he deserves in the next life. That is what overcomes death.

Furthermore, this system would save countless lives. That would be the act of a loving god. To see to it that only those that NEEDED to suffer would, and no more. The simple fact that we feel there is too much in the world is evidence that it is not this way, and therefore very inefficient. What horrifies me about the god that you worship is that he is wastefull with the well-being of his creations.

You can't be sure it wasn't excessive. You will have a difficult time proving that as my argument will simply be "only God knows for sure what was excessive and what wasn't"

This is not a valid justification. We wouldn't need to learn to cure them if he didn't create them in the first place.

We've covered this argument. Growth is the purpose. To rise above the problem.

In the words of Woody Allen, "If god wants to test us, why doesn't he just give us the written?"

Much better argument, and inventive. However the answer is simple. It comes back down to the amount of evil. If all tests were written, would would find that excessively evil and we would still be having this conversation.

Imagine a god that was REALLY a part of your life. That actually taught us lessons in person. Say he held a class every week or so in the middle of the night while you were in a dream state. Every human on earth would experience this, making the existance of god more than evident. We would all have a personal relationship with god, which is what the bible states he wants. We would all still have the free will to follow his teachings.

We call it "opening our heart to Him", but night class was close enough. Oh, and to avoid infringing on free will, the classes aren't mandatory, but they help.

No. Instead, this omnipotent god is invisible and tortures us.

He's invisible to sight. Christians believe that opening your heart makes him visible, but I think it makes no difference. If he was visible, it would be too easy. As stupid as that sounds, imagine God was the obvious right choice. Taking his side is now unimpressive. It's the normal thing to do, not extraordinary. It almost eliminates free will. (this argument is tentative as I have jet lag and may have screwed up. I apologize in advance for any illogical statements.)

As for torturing us...First off, you make it sound like there is only evil in the world and nothing else. Second, torturing would mean we can't get out of the torture. It's a challenge (tough love) if we can overcome the problem.

Easy. You don't. Create symbiosis and the DON'T create harmfull parasites. Pretty small accomplishment for an omnipotent god. What makes you think that you can't have symbiosis and not disease causing viruses?

The logic of our world actually states that harmful parasites are the unsuccessful ones. The ones that don't do damage to the host are much more effective. Plus not all damaging parasites are evil (what's an unborn child?). But the real argument is simply the nature of our world says that good is giving back to the creature, and evil is taking away from the creature. To have the good, you must have the evil to give the good any meaning.

Without viruses, your argument would change to "what about people born without helpful parasites? That's evil".

God created evolution? Completely rediculous. That is unless you believe that Adam and Eve were apes.

Heck, why not...

Even so, how about NOT creating HARMFUL genetic defects. There would still be evolution, but no suffering. Hey, if I can think of it....

It would be illogical. Create an imbalance. Evolution is neutral in nature. It's just a change in genetics. The improvements survive and the deficiencies will have less genetic fitness. To only have improvements would be illogical. Now if you say God could make it logical, then we go beyond the realm of logic and the point becomes impossible to debate.

As I said. He's omnipotent. He could have created ANY system of life he chose. The problem is that he also loves us unconditionaly. So why would an omnibenevolent god CHOOSE to create a world the very foundations of which rest on the shoulders of death and are bathed in the blood of innocents?

First off, because he's omnipotent and sees that this is the best system. And why is the world a terrible place? (you sounds like Tolkien). We have already established Evil is necessary. I have argued that amount of good and the amount of evil in the world balance out with our perception of good and evil. I personally think you have an excessively cynical view of the world.

Anywho, why was this system chosen? Probably because it is the perfect balance. The rules of this universe generally boil down to everything must be even and equal in the end. I personally think that extends to good and evil in relation to our perception.

Hey, don't give God any ideas....

I'm just sayin' before you start making the world out to be a portrait of hell, don't forget we can imagine much worse possibilities as well as better ones.

Responding to this is not for this thread. There's evil...theres too much. We've already established that.

This is related because you say the world is getting worse and I say it's getting better. This is importent because my argument is that humans will grow to live in an increasingly better world and evil shall become lesser and lesser. You say it's getting worse, therefore debunking my hypothesis. It is highly relevant.

The world is not worse then it was 1000 years ago (for instance.) In fact, it is better.

And an omnipotent god couldn't have created continental plates that move with less friction?

Doing so would collapse the laws of physics and who knows what would have had to change to accommodate this change in the properties of friction. Or geologically, maybe the shifting plates needed that friction to create landmasses. Or the possibility remains that earthquakes are just another challenge to over come.

If it means relieving the pain and suffering in the world, who cares how long it would take?

Again. Who cares? It would mean the reduction of pain. And why did he even create it in the first place? He needs oncologists in heaven?

To why we need to cure cancer...I personally believe that curing cancer opens the door to cell life manipulation leading to a cure for death (maybe). Second off, maybe (big maybe) the reason why so many people are dying from this is because of the same rules set in place about genetic mutation. You need them for evolution, but they have this unavoidable side effect. Logically cancer has to exist for evolution to exist. Because cancer is basically a cell that divides forever giving it much more fitness, with the side effect of killing the body.

Why God had this rule in the first place is because of the stated reason above. Balance. I'm not sure why, but the universe is balanced, even the most chaotic physics always follows this rule. God made the universe Balanced, but I can't say why.

Sure. Wait, why is a loving god throwing LETHAL PUZZLES at us again? Its almost like me tossing crowd control grenades into my daughters bedroom. Gee, hope she figures out how to overcome these! Now that wouldn't be very loving would it?

Well the analogy fails because the father knows whats going to happen.
And your example is extreme to say the least. I like the one were a parent doesn't mollycoddle their child when she is ridding a skateboard. If the parent never let the child fall, the child might never learn.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: WW Christians believe that opening your heart makes him visible

What does this mean? The heart is nothing more than an organ. It has no feelings, can't think, runs on its own power. The heart is not some gateway to emotion or enlightenment. Its a pump.

His point to this was, why isn't your god already known to all people all over the world? Why must we "open our heart" (what ever that means) to something we really have no clue exists?

People use this term (open up hearts) thinking it really means something with the heart. It's illogical. Its a poetic term or metaphor, not an actual physical possibility. When you feel an emotion "from the heart", it is really just a brain reaction, not a heart thing.

It all boils back down to the cop out answer, you gotta have faith, the belief without logical proof or empirical evidence. Faith, in that context, is irrational.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: itsdarts What does this mean? The heart is nothing more than an organ. It has no feelings, can't think, runs on its own power. The heart is not some gateway to emotion or enlightenment. Its a pump.

This is way off topic, but what the hell. you asked.

It's a figure of speech. You aren't going to lynch me for it...are you? (now nervous).

His point to this was, why isn't your god already known to all people all over the world? Why must we "open our heart" (what ever that means) to something we really have no clue exists?

This is the argument that has me believe that atheists shouldn't go to hell solely for that reason (also iffy on hell's existence.)

People use this term (open up hearts) thinking it really means something with the heart. It's illogical. Its a poetic term or metaphor, not an actual physical possibility. When you feel an emotion "from the heart", it is really just a brain reaction, not a heart thing.

I can tell you were beat up by Christian bully in school (maybe you still are in school).

So let's take this from a seperate angle. A Buddhist one.

Meditate and clear your mind and explore around you. That's what I meant by open your heart. (I like metaphors with a bit of literary flourish... ^_^)

It all boils back down to the cop out answer, you gotta have faith, the belief without logical proof or empirical evidence. Faith, in that context, is irrational.

Well, faith is irrational when I put into words. However, it makes perfect logical sense while I'm experiencing it. I know you'll shoot me down for it and that's fine. It's the logical and right thing to do, but I'm sticking by my faith.

[ItsDarts]

Thanks for clearing that up. Thats all I wanted, was an admission that the term is a figure of speech, so no, I won't lynch you for it and no need to drag the thread off topic any further. :)

You said that faith makes sense while you are experiencing it.... wouldn't that be "knowledge"? You have your evidence (experience) thus making it knowledge (of some sorts). This is no longer faith.

The next question you should ask yourself is... How do I know what I'm experiencing is what I think it is? Basically now you have to get into the epistomology of what you experienced. You should also ask why others can't/won't/don't experience what you do, or why they experience something differently and come up with a different answer? i.e. a Hindus' experience leads them to believe its one of their 8 or 9 gods, not your god. Why? Are they nuts? Are they wrong? If so, how do you know its not their god? If not, then are you nuts? Of course not, but how do you know you're right? Ahem....Faith, the irrational belief in something without empirical evidence or LOGICAL proof. :)

I'm only vearing off topic because after 14 pages, no one has been able to logically justify the suffering in the world and be able to back it up to the point of convincing me. I still say there is no evidence for the Abrahamic God and thats why there is all the suffering, its just the way things are, period.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: ItsDarts Thanks for clearing that up. Thats all I wanted, was an admission that the term is a figure of speech, so no, I won't lynch you for it and no need to drag the thread off topic any further. :) You said that faith makes sense while you are experiencing it.... wouldn't that be "knowledge"? You have your evidence (experience) thus making it knowledge (of some sorts). This is no longer faith. The next question you should ask yourself is... How do I know what I'm experiencing is what I think it is? Basically now you have to get into the epistomology of what you experienced. You should also ask why others can't/won't/don't experience what you do, or why they experience something differently and come up with a different answer? i.e. a Hindus' experience leads them to believe its one of their 8 or 9 gods, not your god. Why? Are they nuts? Are they wrong? If so, how do you know its not their god? If not, then are you nuts? Of course not, but how do you know you're right? Ahem....Faith, the irrational belief in something without empirical evidence or LOGICAL proof. :) I'm only vearing off topic because after 14 pages, no one has been able to logically justify the suffering in the world and be able to back it up to the point of convincing me. I still say there is no evidence for the Abrahamic God and thats why there is all the suffering, its just the way things are, period.

I don't see the connection to evil and how it defeats the concept of God.

Just look to the bible for example of God willingly causing suffering by asking for the sacrifice of a son. Although an angel interfered at the last moment this test of faith could be called an evil request as well and causing suffering due to the grief knowing you must kill your own child.

So clearly suffering is part of the christian world. Rather the world omnipotent itself likely changed in translation through the ages. In the original text God might not have been described as all powerful and knowing yet the word evolved as it was translated and modified for use by various new authors.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: itsdarts You said that faith makes sense while you are experiencing it.... wouldn't that be "knowledge"? You have your evidence (experience) thus making it knowledge (of some sorts). This is no longer faith.

Well maybe not. I care little about what it's called. Only what it is, and I have described it best I can.

The next question you should ask yourself is... How do I know what I'm experiencing is what I think it is? Basically now you have to get into the epistomology of what you experienced. You should also ask why others can't/won't/don't experience what you do, or why they experience something differently and come up with a different answer?

because each experience is personal and individualized.

Hindus' experience leads them to believe its one of their 8 or 9 gods, not your god. Why?Are they nuts? Are they wrong? If so, how do you know its not their god? If not, then are you nuts?

Actually Hindus believe in one God. Look up Brahman. But that is beside the point.

This is what separates me from most Christians is that I think they are different names for the same thing. I mean, other then ascetic differences, these "gods" seem to have a similar message for humanity. I'm just Christian because I think Jesus was more then human. Rather that He was divine. But I think that is the only major difference and that wasn't a huge part of my experience. God was.

Oh and I'm already nuts so...

Faith, the irrational belief in something without empirical evidence or LOGICAL proof. :)

Says the atheist. You say potato...

I say the steadfast belief of God's promise of a better world.

This lacks not really in logic (not for me. It would lack in logic for someone else). However it does lack in empirical evidence, and I'm ok with that. That would make it boring.

I'm only vearing off topic because after 14 pages, no one has been able to logically justify the suffering in the world and be able to back it up to the point of convincing me. I still say there is no evidence for the Abrahamic God and thats why there is all the suffering, its just the way things are, period.

Ah the actual debate. While I may say otherwise while I'm talking with freefallife, the real answer to most of his/her questions is "I don't know".
Another thing that makes me an odd Christian is there are many things about my faith that I say could be wrong. In fact, they most likely are. For me faith is an educated guess.

[freefallife]

Quote by: Winter wind This seems to be the crux of our arguments, so I'll start with this. I do think that there is evil we can't overcome with what we have now. But I think, over time, we will be able to eliminate our current evils. There is always a time during a puzzle where it is impossible to instantly undo it. After a while of poking and prodding, the answer becomes clearer and obtainable. All evil can be overcome if given time.

So, then is it your opinion that we will one day be able to control the weather and prevent earthquakes?

My response is growth as a human race means human race as a whole could overcome such a problem.

Which still doesn't change the fact that growth could easily be facilitated without suffering. It is a teaching method that is malicious at best. When is killing a good teaching method?

Plus, being Christian, I believe that death is not the end. The man falling from the roof of a building would be able to get what he deserves in the next life. That is what overcomes death.

Death isn't the problem. Its the ways in which we die...the pain involved that is the problem.

You can't be sure it wasn't excessive. You will have a difficult time proving that as my argument will simply be "only God knows for sure what was excessive and what wasn't"

I know it's excessive, you know its excessive. I'm sure there are countless others in the world that feel as such. If this god hears the prayers of the world, he knows its excessive.

We've covered this argument. Growth is the purpose. To rise above the problem.

And you have to justify the use of violence to facilitate that growth. I watch my child grow both physicly and mentally with no need for pain and suffering. It happens on a daily basis. Why use torture to allow us to grow? It is not consistant with a god that loves us unconditionaly.

We call it "opening our heart to Him", but night class was close enough. Oh, and to avoid infringing on free will, the classes aren't mandatory, but they help.

There you go. Now you're getting it.

He's invisible to sight. Christians believe that opening your heart makes him visible, but I think it makes no difference. If he was visible, it would be too easy. As stupid as that sounds, imagine God was the obvious right choice. Taking his side is now unimpressive. It's the normal thing to do, not extraordinary. It almost eliminates free will. (this argument is tentative as I have jet lag and may have screwed up. I apologize in advance for any illogical statements.)

Being visible would be to easy? Then why did he do it before? He walked and spoke directly to Adam and Eve. He gave detailed instructions to Noah for his ark. He appeared before and spoke to Abram. He appeared and spoke with Abraham and his wife Sarai (in fact directly instructing him to rename her Sarah) and gave them the good news of her bearing a son in the near future. He spoke in person with Rebekah, the wife of Isaac. He appears before Isaac to tell him where to live. Abimelech actually witnesses the lord with Isaac. He spoke directly to Moses throughout the exodus. He spoke to Aaron and tells him to meet Moses in the desert.

So, by your argument, god USED to make it too easy for us. That back then, when god was apparently walking around all the time, it was "too easy". Right, so somewhere along the line he decided that he should remain hidden from us all, never to appear again and torture us from afar hoping that we "get it". Rediculous.

As for torturing us...First off, you make it sound like there is only evil in the world and nothing else.

Imagine the universe for a moment. We live on an insignificant speck of rock orbiting an unimpressive star in a galaxy among billions. Out of all we've been able to determine, Earth is the only hospitable place in the universe. The rest of the universe is a violent malstrom in which we can never survive. In as much as the universe is concerned, there is almost infiately more evil than good.

Second, torturing would mean we can't get out of the torture. It's a challenge (tough love) if we can overcome the problem.

Who ever said you couldn't get out of torture. Perhaps you should speak to a Vietnam POW survivor sometime.

Without viruses, your argument would change to "what about people born without helpful parasites? That's evil".

Depends on the level of suffering involved. If a person was born without the "helpful" bacteria in their digestive systen that did not allow the proper absorbsion of nutriens and that person had to undergo medical treatment for life, yes, I would call that evil and question why god had allowed this person to be born at a disadvantage.

Heck, why not...

We were created in god's image. Are you saying that god is a big ape?

It would be illogical. Create an imbalance. Evolution is neutral in nature. It's just a change in genetics. The improvements survive and the deficiencies will have less genetic fitness. To only have improvements would be illogical. Now if you say God could make it logical, then we go beyond the realm of logic and the point becomes impossible to debate.

I'm still trying to see how harmfull genetic defects are a requirement for evolution to suceed. Secondly, you should start a thread on your viewpoint of how evolution and thology don't clash. We were created as is according to the bible, in gods image.

I personally think you have an excessively cynical view of the world.

Not necessarily cynical. I'd call it realistic. And its not just the world, but the universe in general. As I stated, it is a very violent place.

Anywho, why was this system chosen? Probably because it is the perfect balance. The rules of this universe generally boil down to everything must be even and equal in the end.

Yet you agree that good and evil are NOT in ballance. You're saying that someday they will be?

This is related because you say the world is getting worse and I say it's getting better. This is importent because my argument is that humans will grow to live in an increasingly better world and evil shall become lesser and lesser. You say it's getting worse, therefore debunking my hypothesis. It is highly relevant.

The world is heading inexorably to total destruction. Take your pick of ELE catastrophies. Even if we don't blow ourselves up through nuclear war, the sun is going to melt the planet in about 5 billion years, or we're going to get struck by a meteor the size of Manhattan. If the end result is the complete destruction of our species, I would argue that we are heading into a MORE evil future.

The world is not worse then it was 1000 years ago (for instance.) In fact, it is better.

In some ways, this is true. In far more disasterous ways it isn't. We weren't so self destructive 1000 years ago. By that I mean the impact our species has on this planet. 70% of biologists view the present era as part of a mass extinction event, possibly one of the fastest ever, according to a 1998 survey by the American Museum of Natural History. This is due mostly to the outstanding job we as a species are doing destroying the biosphere. some researchers estimate that it could cause the extinction of almost half of all species in the next 100 years. We're killing ourselves, we're killing this planet, and you want to say "it's not all bad". Sure. At least there's love in the world. Too bad there's no god.

Doing so would collapse the laws of physics and who knows what would have had to change to accommodate this change in the properties of friction.

Its not the properties of friction that I was suggesting to be changes. How bout some grease??

Or geologically, maybe the shifting plates needed that friction to create landmasses.

Indeed. And this happens at a constant rate every day. Mt Everest grows about 3 in. a year. The problem is when the plates get stuck. There's no reason for god to have created a system that gets stuck and then kills 200,000 people when it works for the most part just fine without quakes that are felt on a daily basis.

Or the possibility remains that earthquakes are just another challenge to over come.

first, there is no overcoming earthquakes. And I think I've already covered the whole "challenge" thing.

To why we need to cure cancer...I personally believe that curing cancer opens the door to cell life manipulation leading to a cure for death (maybe).

A cure for death?? Wait, I thought you wnated to go to heaven? Nothin last forever, my friend. Death comes for us all.

Second off, maybe (big maybe) the reason why so many people are dying from this is because of the same rules set in place about genetic mutation. You need them for evolution, but they have this unavoidable side effect.

Again, I'd like to see that thread on evolution being gods creation.

Well the analogy fails because the father knows whats going to happen.

EXACTLY!!! He KNOWS we are going to suffer immense pain and he does it anyway!!

And your example is extreme to say the least.

I don't think so. God knows we are going to suffer. I know my daughter will suffer. God hopes we will overcome the pain somehow. I hope my 3 year old figures a way out of that room.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: Winter wind Well maybe not. I care little about what it's called. Only what it is, and I have described it best I can. because each experience is personal and individualized.

Which is the worst kind of evidence for a claim that there is. Science uses evidence that is the same for everyone, not individuals. To maintain intellectual honesty, I rule out personal experience over facts that others can verify. Just yesterday morning I was out having a smoke, it was shortly before dawn and it was dark in all but the eastern sky. I was looking up at the stars, then I saw something move, as I looked, it looked like a bunch of objects with no lights on flying in a U formation... I thought to myself, I could see someone believing that MAYBE this was a UFO of some sort or even some kind of air craft(s) from the Air Force.... After watching this thing for about 45 seconds, I personally realized it must be a small flock of birds and because of the formation, probably in the Duck or Goose family. It was dark, so I can't be 100% sure. If I was less educated, I may have reported a UFO sighting, had I been predisposed to believe such things. I'm willing to bet, although I could be totally wrong, that you are predisposed to believe in god as a product of your upbringing and possible location in the world coupled with a fear of the possibility of an afterlife. I was born in Germany, raised in America by very weak Christian Family. I "found god" in my teens in and re-baptized myself into the southern baptist faith, switching from Lutheran. The two faiths aren't that much different, they both believe that all you have to do is confess your sins to god, accept Jesus as your saviour and you will be saved no matter what. I was indoctrinated into the baptist church because at the time, I was vulnerable, looking for fellowship and these people were pretty darn nice. It wasn't til later that I <cof> fell from grace and realized that there is no reason to assume there is any gods until there is logical proof and empirical evidence. After 9-11, I knew there was not god as described in the bible or the quran because that god contradicts its own attributes of being omni this and omni that. All Loving and All Powerfull are contradictory in the face of suffering. He could be one or the other, but not both as long as suffering (no matter how you define it) exists. (sorry for the rant)

Actually Hindus believe in one God. Look up Brahman. But that is beside the point.

Ummmm I did, and this is what I found.....

Link to many Hindu Gods and Godesses.

And

The difference between the Christian God and Brahman

I've also seen it said that Brahman is the Creator God of everything and IS everything, thus the other gods of Hinduism are also "part of creation/Brahman". We are all part of Brahman as well... this is NOT the Christian understanding of God. But you're right, its besides the point ;-)

This is what separates me from most Christians is that I think they are different names for the same thing. I mean, other then ascetic differences, these "gods" seem to have a similar message for humanity.

Uhhh why wouldn't you think that humanity as a whole would think this way? The "Golden Rule" of the bible isn't unique to the bible, it was a well know "rule" long before the Abrahmic gods, most likely because humanity as a whole, just happens to think alike.

I'm just Christian because I think Jesus was more then human. Rather that He was divine. But I think that is the only major difference and that wasn't a huge part of my experience. God was. Oh and I'm already nuts so...

How do you know Jesus even existed? There are many strong arguments that assert he never did

Jesusneverexisted.com

Says the atheist. You say potato... I say the steadfast belief of God's promise of a better world. This lacks not really in logic (not for me. It would lack in logic for someone else). However it does lack in empirical evidence, and I'm ok with that. That would make it boring.

Actually that is the dictionary definition... Faith 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. I admit that definition 1 probably describes how you think, its really definition 2 that you are employing.

The bolded part, just because it appears boring, doesn't make it true and is intellectually bankrupt.

[Piscean]

There's no battle between God and the devil. Everything that happens is Gods will period. Some can't handle this because it seems to harsh and yet they really except the idea that their god will burn the vast majority of humanity in fire forever hah!! Humans are for the most part spiritually blind in this world and that's the way it's meant to be for now.

It's like saying : if god is good, why did he create satan?? a manifistation of evil?? can a good god creat evilness?

[freefallife]

Quote by: Piscean Everything that happens is Gods will period.

So much for free will then.

Humans are for the most part spiritually blind in this world and that's the way it's meant to be for now.

We are meant to be spiritually blind? So, god DOESN'T want to be clearly evident? What does us being spiritually blind have to do with the presence of so much evil in the world?

[Winter wind]

I really apologies for taking such a long time to respond.

Quote by: freefallife So, then is it your opinion that we will one