Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Spud]

If people want to use for good the things that God intended them to use for evil, does that mean God is good for providing them.

The thing is that good things happen and bad things happen. Also people do good things and people do bad things. You are quite happy to take the credit for the good on God's behalf, but very reluctant to take the blame for the bad on God's behalf , even though the evidence for his involvement is exactly the same on both sides of the equation. You are not being honest with yourself.

Any thoughts on why God gave us tapeworms, tsetse flies and the plasmodium parasite?

The difference is that God didn't intend for anything he gave us to be used for evil, but he did intend it to be used for good. He said "I give you all the plants and their fruit for food" not "I give you all the tree branches to hit each other with" or something like that.

Re tapeworms etc, they had non-parasitic lifecycles until after the Fall

[Gordon]

Re tapeworms etc, they had non-parasitic lifecycles until after the Fall

Do tell - all taperworm species are endoparasites that live and survive in the bodies of their various host species.

Putting the nonsense of 'the Fall' to one side, perhaps you can explain how something that is intrinsically parasitic can have a non-parasitic lifestyle from inside the digestive tracts of its hosts. How does it feed, presuming that before 'the Fall' it would need sustenance and that a shopping trip to its local Asda sounds unlikely?


Beats me how you can post

[jeremyp]

The difference is that God didn't intend for anything he gave us to be used for evil, but he did intend it to be used for good.

Got any evidence for that?

Re tapeworms etc, they had non-parasitic lifecycles until after the Fall

That is absurd on its face. Tapeworms are highly specialised for living in the guts of other animals. They can't survive outside for very long. Had they been different enough before the Fall to survive without parasitising other animals, they would not have been identifiably tape worms.

And, if they spontaneously did become parasites at the Fall, it's only God who could have made that happen.

[SteveH]

  God does not exist (positive assertion…please justify).

"God does not exist" is (pretty obviously, I'd've thought) a negative assertion, and as such is the default position. It is for theists to demonstrate the likelihood of God - Occam's razor.

[Nearly Sane]

"God does not exist" is (pretty obviously, I'd've thought) a negative assertion, and as such is the default position. It is for theists to demonstrate the likelihood of God - Occam's razor.

On this I would side with Vlad. Stating that something does not exist, despite the use of the word -not' is a type of positive claim that requires justification. The default position is not to be convinced of the existence of something without evidence, nor to deny that the thing exists. See black swans.

[Spud]

Do tell - all taperworm species are endoparasites that live and survive in the bodies of their various host species.

Putting the nonsense of 'the Fall' to one side, perhaps you can explain how something that is intrinsically parasitic can have a non-parasitic lifestyle from inside the digestive tracts of its hosts. How does it feed, presuming that before 'the Fall' it would need sustenance and that a shopping trip to its local Asda sounds unlikely?


Beats me how you can post

Some animals lost organs over time, and it appears that tapeworms have lost their digestive system that would have enabled them to survive without relying on a host's pre-digested nutrients.

[Nearly Sane]

Some animals lost organs over time, and it appears that tapeworms have lost their digestive system that would have enabled them to survive without relying on a host's pre-digested nutrients.

I suppose, to be fair, serpents became noticeably less chatty at the same time.

[Nearly Sane]

I chatted to one once.

Are you Harry, or He Who Cannot Be Named?

[Gordon]

Some animals lost organs over time, and it appears that tapeworms have lost their digestive system that would have enabled them to survive without relying on a host's pre-digested nutrients.

So - evolution in action then?

Still though, if a tapeworm had at some point a different digestive system then, presumably, it did not reside and feed in the guts of its hosts, as us currently the case - so in what was was it a tapeworm in its previous guise?

I think you need to explain how you know this, else we might think you are talking bollocks.

[Nearly Sane]

So - evolution in action then?

Still though, if a tapeworm had at some point a different digestive system then, presumably, it did not reside and feed in the guts of its hosts, as us currently the case - so in what was was it a tapeworm in its previous guise?

I think you need to explain how you know this, else we might think you are talking bollocks.

Or indeed Parseltongue

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not proposing any creation.

But you are debating what a postulated creation would be like all the same

The post you replied to was explicit about that. Given such an egregious misunderstanding/misrepresentation, I suggest you go back, read it again, possibly a number of times, and then draft a reply based on what it says.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah your beliefs are so fragile that someone not accepting them shouldn't duscuss them.

As to the question in the second paragraph, I can't answer for jeremyp, but no, I don't think religion is evil, nor I have said, suggested that, or implied that here.

Indeed, I have posted many times on the board, that I think religion is just a symptom of what it means to be human, and is morally neutral.

Pointing out that the god you or Spud suggests is a moral thug, and that by your logic you worship the creation of cancer is about your representations of your views.

The creation of Cancer? Can mutation be a thing without the possibility of cancer?
As it happens we do live in a universe where Cancer can be prevented without suspension of the laws of nature... in other words in terms of intervention. To effect this in all cases is probably in the pursue of mankind’s will.

So a universe which operates by mutation with the potential to eliminate the effects of mutation is actually what has been created rather than the bald, isolated and singular claim “ The creation of cancer” so when one accuses someone of worshipping cancer, that is a wrong isn’t it?

[Nearly Sane]

The creation of Cancer? Can mutation be a thing without the possibility of cancer?
As it happens we do live in a universe where Cancer can be prevented without suspension of the laws of nature... in other words in terms of intervention. To effect this in all cases is probably in the pursue of mankind’s will.

So a universe which operates by mutation with the potential to eliminate the effects of mutation is actually what has been created rather than the bald, isolated and singular claim “ The creation of cancer” so when one accuses someone of worshipping cancer, that is a wrong isn’t it?

If I could stop cancer I would. Your god wouldn't. You worship death and pain.

[Nearly Sane]

But you are debating what a postulated creation would be like all the same

And?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But God could stop the murder by making the murderer trip over his shoe laces or some other trivial thing like that. The bus driver has no recourse but to run him down with the bus.
 Many of your fellow Christians believe exactly that. Spud here is claiming that God provides him food and clothing. Your Bible tells stories about spectacular interventions by your God.


And yet Christians are constantly claiming God does intervene.

God may well construe to physically tangle a murderers shoe lace but that will be the exception rather than the rule. So what would God’s laws of nature have to look like if murderers shoe laces were uniquely tangled for every murderer...Your proposal, your burden.

God is the root of all hierarchies so whether intervention is the right term in all things I’m not sure.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And?

Falling back on “well,I don’t agree with it anyway”is a sign you feel you are losing the argument.

[Nearly Sane]

Falling back on “well,I don’t agree with it anyway”is a sign you feel you are losing the argument.

If I did that, then yes, but since pointing out the internal inconsistencies about something 'postulated' by others isn't doing that....

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not the one that needs to explain it, as I'm not the one that was asserting it. Crack on.

O.

You’ve made assertions about what alienation is and how it’s definition changes per culture
Rather than being universal in all cultures and I’m saying the latter.

[Gordon]

As it happens we do live in a universe where Cancer can be prevented without suspension of the laws of nature... in other words in terms of intervention.

That's a tad simplistic Vlad, even for you: they told me that by the time I had the first noticeable symptoms of cancer it had probably started a year or so before anyone knew, least of all me, so at the point of first intervention it was already too late for a 'cure'. The question then is, where was your 'God', since it presumably knew (having all the omni's) what my situation was at a point where treatment would have been more effective (in 'cure' terms).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What would be unreasonable and illogical about it? Are 'miracles' reasonable and logical?

Chemistry would have to be suspended specifically to disallow the formation of nucleic acid.
This would involve imputing intelligence into each potential nucleic acid producing agent. Intelligence in the physical world is an evolved characteristic.. since evolution requires mutation such intelligence would not arise. Such logical problems are exacerbated the more specific you get imho.

We don’t have a science of miracles since they are not governed by laws of nature and the bible assumes that “God can” what we do know is they are exceptional.

[Nearly Sane]

Chemistry would have to be suspended specifically to disallow the formation of nucleic acid.
This would involve imputing intelligence into each potential nucleic acid producing agent. Intelligence in the physical world is an evolved characteristic.. since evolution requires mutation such intelligence would not arise. Such logical problems are exacerbated the more specific you get imho.

We don’t have a science of miracles since they are not governed by laws of nature and the bible assumes that “God can” what we do know is they are exceptional.

So your god designed a random system that it didn't plan for that was, however, going to produce humans so it could punish them for something that it knew they would do, and then send its 'son' though what that means you seem unable to explain to have the 'son' killed so it could forgive the people who killed it not for killing it but because they killed it and then bring it back to life and occasionally do something like save someone from a horrible disease that only happens because your god created the environment but not generally and watch people die in the environment ot created because that was the plan or maybe not...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If I did that, then yes, but since pointing out the internal inconsistencies about something 'postulated' by others isn't doing that....

As i’ve Said before changing the laws of nature for specific categories of events gives rise to internal inconsistency and I have explained how. I am not totally clear how miracles can possibly come under any expectation of consistency.

[Outrider]

You’ve made assertions about what alienation is and how it’s definition changes per culture

No, I haven't.

Rather than being universal in all cultures and I’m saying the latter.

But you've not given anything to identify what this 'alienation' is - you've just asserted that EVERYONE is alienated - there is, therefore, no comparison to see what that manifests as, how it could be identified, or what it would actually means. You've just asserted waffle - I could equally assert that everyone is alienated from Zeus, Beelzebub or heavenly cheese, and have equally no way of demonstrating that it's a valid claim (or of allowing anyone to falsify it). It's a meaningless statement.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So your god designed a random system that it didn't plan for that was, however, going to produce humans so it could punish them for something that it knew they would do, and then send its 'son' though what that means you seem unable to explain to have the 'son' killed so it could forgive the people who killed it not for killing it but because they killed it and then bring it back to life and occasionally do something like save someone from a horrible disease that only happens because your god created the environment but not generally and watch people die in the environment ot created because that was the plan or maybe not...

Anyone?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I haven't.

But you've not given anything to identify what this 'alienation' is - you've just asserted that EVERYONE is alienated - there is, therefore, no comparison to see what that manifests as, how it could be identified, or what it would actually means. You've just asserted waffle - I could equally assert that everyone is alienated from Zeus, Beelzebub or heavenly cheese, and have equally no way of demonstrating that it's a valid claim (or of allowing anyone to falsify it). It's a meaningless statement.

O.

Alienation is estrangement Outrider.
Everyone’s alienation from Zeus derives I would say from their alienation from the true divinity...I love cheese.