Evidence for God from Science

The universe was intelligently designed to be temporary and sustain life.

Ivellious wrote:Just a quick point about giving God credit for everything we do as humans...

I disagree to a point. Why is it egotistical to say that humans have accomplished a great deal in the brief time that we've been on Earth? I understand the concept that God gave us potential. And in that case, God would be indirectly responsible for everything. But the caveat is that if you want to give God credit for everything we do with that potential, all the bad must go with it. Namely, all the evil we commit as a whole, destruction of the planet we are given, raping the Earth and its inhabitants of everything they have to further our development...So if you want to credit everything we do as God's work, be sure to remember that He gave us potential for evil and failure, too...

I'm not totally bashing your idea though. I just wouldn't say that the framework of Christianity demands that God gets credit for everything we do as individuals that is good, while he gets no credit for the bad. It either needs to cut both ways or we need to be held responsible and given credit for using that potential and how we use it.

Ivellious wrote:To be fair I think it cuts both ways...I think it's a little bit narrow-minded to give all credit for the good of humanity to God while blaming humans on all that is bad. I also think it's silly to argue against the Christian God by taking credit for everything good in your life, while putting all the blame for the bad on God (which some militant atheists do). Again, personally I'd say the best way to look at it is God gave us potential. Both the potential for great things as well as evil and destruction. In essence, in doing so I personally give credit to humanity for everything we've done with our own perseverance and willpower and intuition and ingenuity, but you can still give God the credit for making it possible. At the same time, we are responsible for the negative actions we take as well, but that was also made possible by God.

This of course means I am presuming total free will of everyone on Earth.

Ivellious wrote:True, most Christians probably don't feel that way, but some (mostly evangelical) Christians do. By the same token, not all atheists take such a harsh stance as the one I used as an example.

I'm not totally bashing your idea though. I just wouldn't say that the framework of Christianity demands that God gets credit for everything we do as individuals that is good, while he gets no credit for the bad. It either needs to cut both ways or we need to be held responsible and given credit for using that potential and how we use it.

domokunrox wrote:You guys got lost.

I don't believe I ever said give God credit for everything you do. If I did, sorry. I should have clarified further. You give God credit for finding the truth. The truth he has revealed to you. The good he has taught you. The instinctive sense of what is objectively good.

It would be an absolute insult to God to say you learned rape, murder, theft, etc from God. God does not teach us to sin. He can only know and only teach us righteousness. He does not know or teach us anything that is contrary to his nature.

domokunrox wrote:No worries, Dan. Its not directed at you specifically. Its plural statement.

Thank you for clarifying. Not sure if I agree with your statement still. Maybe something is lost in translation.

Zvezdichko wrote:Sup peeps,

I think that one of the strongest arguments against theism and Christianity is the argument from bad design...

I had some very nasty choking experiences and they even grew up into fear of choking. I had fear when eating my food. I overcame my fears, but in the end I'm a biologist... It seems that we really are so badly designed that we just can't had been created by a loving God.

What do you think?

One of the examples of "bad design" proposed
by Olshansky et al. is the human esophagus. At the bottom of the throat, the trachea (the
passage that leads to the lungs) enter the
esophagus. When you swallow food or water, a
structure called the epiglottis closes to cover
your trachea so that these materials do not go
into your lungs. The system does not work perfectly every time, as we have all
experienced when choking on food or water
that "goes down the wrong way." In some
instances, this choking can be life threatening.
Olshansky et al. suggest that a better design would be to have two separate tubes - one
leading from the nose directly into the lungs
and the second leading from the mouth directly
to the stomach. There are several problems with this "better"
design. First, to have two tubes in the neck
would require extra space and extra systems
(with the associated additional energy costs) to
maintain two structures. More importantly, it
would be very difficult to breathe when you get a sinus infection. Congestion in the nose would
be life threatening, since it would prevent or
severely restrict breathing, since the nose
would be the only way that air could enter the
lungs. There would also be the problem of
getting rid of liquid that accidentally enters the lungs. It would have to be pushed all the way
up to the nose and expelled there (make sure
you carry lots of tissue with you!). Under the
current system, it need only go to the top of the
trachea and the down the esophagus to the
stomach. The two tube design would also restrict the amount of physical activity that
humans could do. When we run, we take in air
through our mouths, since the larger opening
allows for a more rapid respiration rate. The
only way to allow for a large respiration rate
with one tube to the nose would be to greatly increase the size and openings in our nose.
Not only would this look ugly, but the larger
openings would present problems. Things
could enter into such large openings and have
direct access to your lungs (How would you like
to inhale a fly into your lungs?). Larger nasal passages would also reduce the temperature
of the air, since it could not be heated as
effectively (important for cold climates). Another
major problem would be speech and language.
We need to use our mouths and tongue in
order to produce speech. Air running over vocal cords, in the absence of a tongue, lips
and teeth, would only be able to produce a
very limited number of sounds (it might not
affect Rambo, but the rest of us would have a
difficult time communicating). Try it some time
(hold your mouth open and don't move your tongue as you attempt to communicate). Of
course the evolutionist might propose
additional structures in the nose (like a tongue,
lips and teeth-like structures). So, here is what the evolutionists are proposing
for a superior breathing apparatus. Our
trachea would continue up to our nose,
requiring our necks to be at least 1 inch wider.
We would have huge noses with nose lips and
a tongue protruding out. Of course, our faces would have to be much longer to accommodate
the additional structures. Now, we would really
be ugly! On second thought, it might be
interesting trying to kiss with two sets of lips -
nah, constantly expelling liquid out our nose
would make it kind of gross. Aren't you glad you weren't designed by an evolutionist!

Vespetta wrote:

One of the examples of "bad design" proposed
by Olshansky et al. is the human esophagus. At the bottom of the throat, the trachea (the
passage that leads to the lungs) enter the
esophagus. When you swallow food or water, a
structure called the epiglottis closes to cover
your trachea so that these materials do not go
into your lungs. The system does not work perfectly every time, as we have all
experienced when choking on food or water
that "goes down the wrong way." In some
instances, this choking can be life threatening.
Olshansky et al. suggest that a better design would be to have two separate tubes - one
leading from the nose directly into the lungs
and the second leading from the mouth directly
to the stomach. There are several problems with this "better"
design. First, to have two tubes in the neck
would require extra space and extra systems
(with the associated additional energy costs) to
maintain two structures. More importantly, it
would be very difficult to breathe when you get a sinus infection. Congestion in the nose would
be life threatening, since it would prevent or
severely restrict breathing, since the nose
would be the only way that air could enter the
lungs. There would also be the problem of
getting rid of liquid that accidentally enters the lungs. It would have to be pushed all the way
up to the nose and expelled there (make sure
you carry lots of tissue with you!). Under the
current system, it need only go to the top of the
trachea and the down the esophagus to the
stomach. The two tube design would also restrict the amount of physical activity that
humans could do. When we run, we take in air
through our mouths, since the larger opening
allows for a more rapid respiration rate. The
only way to allow for a large respiration rate
with one tube to the nose would be to greatly increase the size and openings in our nose.
Not only would this look ugly, but the larger
openings would present problems. Things
could enter into such large openings and have
direct access to your lungs (How would you like
to inhale a fly into your lungs?). Larger nasal passages would also reduce the temperature
of the air, since it could not be heated as
effectively (important for cold climates). Another
major problem would be speech and language.
We need to use our mouths and tongue in
order to produce speech. Air running over vocal cords, in the absence of a tongue, lips
and teeth, would only be able to produce a
very limited number of sounds (it might not
affect Rambo, but the rest of us would have a
difficult time communicating). Try it some time
(hold your mouth open and don't move your tongue as you attempt to communicate). Of
course the evolutionist might propose
additional structures in the nose (like a tongue,
lips and teeth-like structures). So, here is what the evolutionists are proposing
for a superior breathing apparatus. Our
trachea would continue up to our nose,
requiring our necks to be at least 1 inch wider.
We would have huge noses with nose lips and
a tongue protruding out. Of course, our faces would have to be much longer to accommodate
the additional structures. Now, we would really
be ugly! On second thought, it might be
interesting trying to kiss with two sets of lips -
nah, constantly expelling liquid out our nose
would make it kind of gross. Aren't you glad you weren't designed by an evolutionist!

-- An excerpt from one of Rich's articles on the main site. I think I'd rather take my chances with choking...