Evidence for God from Science

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?

If you are a biologist how about posing an intelligent hyposthesis?

Badly designed in comparison with what?

Canuckster1127 wrote:Badly designed in comparison with what?

.. with a hypothetically better design that includes two separate tubes, for example

God said his creation was good not perfect, it was never meant to be perfect, if it was perfect we would live forever. Genesis 1:10
This goes the same for design, it is good not perfect.


Dan

Danieltwotwenty wrote:God said his creation was good not perfect, it was never meant to be perfect, if it was perfect we would live forever. Genesis 1:10
This goes the same for design, it is good not perfect.
Dan

Why would a God create a creation that's not perfect? This would prove his impotence.

Zvezdichko wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:God said his creation was good not perfect, it was never meant to be perfect, if it was perfect we would live forever. Genesis 1:10
This goes the same for design, it is good not perfect.
Dan

Why would a God create a creation that's not perfect? This would prove his impotence.

If the creation was perfect we would not die and would have no need to seek God, God seeks a relationship with us and wants us to make a choice and has provided a system that was designed in such a way that we could freely make that choice.
God is not incompetent, he created it this way with a larger purpose in mind.
Death is not the end (don't fear the reaper), the perfect creation is the next life once you have made your choice.


Dan

Anyway - how do we know it is a bad design - we are discovering new things about the human body all the time. Did your university teach you all the knowledge of human biology discovered and undiscovered?

Zvezdichko wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:God said his creation was good not perfect, it was never meant to be perfect, if it was perfect we would live forever. Genesis 1:10
This goes the same for design, it is good not perfect.
Dan

Why would a God create a creation that's not perfect? This would prove his impotence.

God's next creation will be perfect.

Isaiah 65:17 "Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.

Maybe, you'd like to join us, Zvezdichko.

God is not here for our happiness. This goes along with saying that the existence of disease and natural disaster is in conflict with God's loving nature or extreme power.

If the creation was perfect we would not die and would have no need to seek God, God seeks a relationship with us and wants us to make a choice and has provided a system that was designed in such a way that we could freely make that choice.

That's very interesting and at the same time disturbing. To me it seems that God has created a harsh and malevolent world (system) in which there will be two types of people: 1. The ones who will feel helpless in this malevolent world and seek God. 2. The others who will think that God doesn't exist, the bad design is actually created by evolution or (if theism is true) by an evil entity ... and they will have nothing to do with this evil entity...

To me it reminds me of the movie Coraline in which the girl is actually being forced to love her other mother... It's not really a choice... And by the way we're arguing about theism and yes - theoretically your point has some merit if the world was created by a neutral deity / or a moral monster... But when it comes to Christianity this problem is really a brick in the wall, because we are dealing with LOVE.

The question still stays: If God is love, who would he created a malevolent world in which we're forced to make a very nasty choice? It's not something LOVE could do becuase LOVE cannot do and shouldn't create malevolent/harsh things...

Anyway - how do we know it is a bad design - we are discovering new things about the human body all the time. Did your university teach you all the knowledge of human biology discovered and undiscovered?

We know that it's a bad design when people suffer... The criteria is: suffering or no suffering. Suffering implies bad design. Lack of suffering implies good design. My university didn't teach me all the knowledge of human body, but it taught me so many things I'm wondering how the world could have been created by a loving deity. Predators. Death. Viruses...

God's next creation will be perfect.

There's a disturbing trend amongst many Christians who love to downgrade the omnipotence of God. Why create a temporary world before perfect world is still a question (check point 1. of my reply), especially if the temporary world is malevolent and harsh.

Maybe, you'd like to join us, Zvezdichko.

Perhaps. But don't tell me that those who don't join you will go to a fiery pit called hell... This not only cannot be reconciled with love, but I find it insulting. I think that Christian Universalism explains much better the full restoration of the world, but we still deal with the problem of evil. I'm not open to contradictions in religion, and I'll never ever be.

God is not here for our happiness. This goes along with saying that the existence of disease and natural disaster is in conflict with God's loving nature or extreme power.

Yes, we really have the very same problem, but if God is not here for our happiness why is he here? If I create something I love dearly, I would try to create the best conditions for my creation. I would want my creation to feel better at all cost.

The only other option is that God doesn't care about happiness because he's neutral or totally evil.

Zvez,

First, I would like to say that an argument from a "very, very bad design", never proves anything. To you a design may seem bad, really bad, like I don't like the design of the new Nokia N9. I prefer others but does that make it a bad design just because it doesn't work for me. I mean, I can argue that 2 legs is a bad design because you and I can't run as fast as a horse. Would you find that a legitimate argument? Even if you do, it is not. Because we are weighing the argument against nothing but our perception of a supposedly better design. Would you agree if a person breaks his leg while climbing a tree and then complain that God made a very bad design cuz if he had made man with no legs at all, his leg won't be broken??? This is just circular perception bent on proving itself.

The question still stays: If God is love, who would he created a malevolent world in which we're forced to make a very nasty choice? It's not something LOVE could do becuase LOVE cannot do and shouldn't create malevolent/harsh things...

Ah, not being fair Zev, this whole statement begs the question. God made a free world. It turned malevolent because God just so happened to give man, you and me, free will as well. Ah there you go, you can do what you like, help or kill, feed or starve, up to you. The choices that you do make on your own, is also the result of that same God. Should your choices not be free? Now when they are, you are complaining, if it had been robotic, automated, you wouldn't even know that you could complain. Or do you like a God who can program everyone to be just good and then shove religion, down your throat, and all you do, in all your life, is just praising God, on your knees, not because you love him. No, but because you can't do anything else. Your choice is not involved and you have no say in the matter. Well believe me, that would be evil. So really, what are the odds that God is not loving? he is loving Zev, you're very existance proves it. Had he been really evil, you would have been eliminated the very moment you said he is not loving. After all, if he is really evil, then why spare you?

I hope you can see the point.

neo-x wrote:Zvez,

First, I would like to say that an argument from a "very, very bad design", never proves anything. To you a design may seem bad, really bad, like I don't like the design of the new Nokia N9. I prefer others but does that make it a bad design just because it doesn't work for me. I mean, I can argue that 2 legs is a bad design because you and I can't run as fast as a horse. Would you find that a legitimate argument? Even if you do, it is not. Because we are weighing the argument against nothing but our perception of a supposedly better design. Would you agree if a person breaks his leg while climbing a tree and then complain that God made a very bad design cuz if he had made man with no legs at all, his leg won't be broken??? This is just circular perception bent on proving itself.

Greetings,

I think that there's a difference in the viewpoint towards this problem. You're trying to solve the problem top-down, while I'm looking bottom-up.

The argument "very bad design" actually proves something, but only if you can offer a hypothetical better design. If somebody offers a plausible hypothesis that works - like the case with two tubes instead of esophagus - you're able to prove that there's a better available design... Richard Deem may think this design is "ugly" as described on GodAndScience website, but his argument falls short because ugliness is relative and not abolute - if everyone had been created with two tubes - one for breathing and one for food, we wouldn't have thought it's ugly because we wouldn't have imagine it could have been otherwise.

Breakfast time... will reply to the second part of the comment later.

neo-x wrote: Ah, not being fair Zev, this whole statement begs the question. God made a free world. It turned malevolent because God just so happened to give man, you and me, free will as well. Ah there you go, you can do what you like, help or kill, feed or starve, up to you. The choices that you do make on your own, is also the result of that same God. Should your choices not be free? Now when they are, you are complaining, if it had been robotic, automated, you wouldn't even know that you could complain. Or do you like a God who can program everyone to be just good and then shove religion, down your throat, and all you do, in all your life, is just praising God, on your knees, not because you love him. No, but because you can't do anything else. Your choice is not involved and you have no say in the matter. Well believe me, that would be evil. So really, what are the odds that God is not loving? he is loving Zev, you're very existance proves it. Had he been really evil, you would have been eliminated the very moment you said he is not loving. After all, if he is really evil, then why spare you?

Back here

he is loving Zev, you're very existance proves it. Had he been really evil, you would have been eliminated the very moment you said he is not loving. After all, if he is really evil, then why spare you?

I remember reading an article... If he's really evil, why would he spare me? It's possible if he wants me to watch me suffering and he experiences pleasure of doing this

Ah, I remember the link to the article:

http://www.dpjs.co.uk/god.html

If God is evil, there could still be love and good people in this malevolent world, so the evil God could experience pleasure by punishing good people...

I remember reading an article... If he's really evil, why would he spare me? It's possible if he wants me to watch me suffering and he experiences pleasure of doing this

Yes, but it makes the point even more irrelevant. If God is really evil, then the whole point is, you do not matter to him in the least and the foremost. If that be true then what you see and suffer would not even matter to him.