I don’t. A painting indicates a painter only because I’ve watched painters create paintings. Same thing with buildings and architects. The data I’ve collected indicates that a painting must have a painter. I’ve never watched a universe be created, neither has anyone else I’ve known, or that I’m aware of in history so there is no data to indicate the universe must have a creator.
Also with a painting even if One doesnt see a particular painting painted, one can typically trace it back to the artist. But the universe has several competing claims as to who created it. They can’t all be right, but they can all be wrong.
Not really. You’re there banging on about collecting data, but you assume the non-existence of God because of a lack of empirical evidence. If you were such a (consistent) fan of empiricism, I should think you’d at least hesitate to take a position of denial.
You know absolutely nothing about how or why I became an atheist. You just made all these assumptions about me based off of one comment that I made.l, that seems like the definition of jumping to conclusions. I understand you think I came to the wrong conclusion, I think you did too, no hard feelings. But it took me really 5 years of wrestling and researching and thinking and struggling before I said I was an atheist out loud. An action that o knew would strain several relationships with family and friends. Atheism is not a conclusion that I reached easily or quickly, or without much thought. Perhaps you should learn more about a person before you make your assumptions
Perhaps you should read your initial comment again and then not be so indignant about giving clear indications that your decision was given impetus by dependence solely on lack of empiricial data.
Indeed – who would deliberately design a natural world where the slightest variable can trigger a variety of genetic disorders, which can afflict everyone, even child, for which the best answer is arbitrary measures of ‘sin’?
You are mistaken. You have thousands of genetic ‘variables’ every day that are corrected thanks to the extremely efficient DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms the designer equipped you with.
We are as a species vulnerable to a whole host of diseases. We are limited in our range of survivorable temperatures. This doesn’t strike me as a result of Intelligent design.
The ability to regulate blood/sugar levels could be considered the same, yet this is something that goes wrong as well, leading to diabetes. If we are to accept the presence of a designer, they are either A: not very skilled, given the flaws in human biology (to say nothing of the biology of other animals).
This extends further to the natural world at large. Our environment is inherently dangerous. Our planet experiences tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Asteroids could potentially hit the earth at any moment. None of these things strike me as the result of ‘intelligent’ design.
I’ve already explained this. We are susceptible to diseases that can cripple and kill us. We are vulnerable to cancers. The tiniest misalignment in our brains can trigger epilepsy. Shall I continue?
Yes, I have. I’ll break down the most salient point. If we are the product of a design, we are not a good design. Are we not susceptible to diseases that can kill us? To conditions that limit our lives? Do we not live on a rock that can kill us en masse through natural disasters?
Never said it did. It might be nice though, to be designed in such a fashion that means we aren’t going to suffer from cancer, or have a planet designed so that we don’t face earthquakes.
But that’s not the issue is it? A being that is all-powerful should have been able to design us so as to not be afflicted by issues like cancer. That’s the issue. Either God is unable to do this, which calls into question God’s omnipotence, or God is unwilling to do this, unless we jump through hoops.
As to your question: no, it is not beyond God’s ability, but in the purpose to test us He created life but also death; so naturally however optimally designed, we are intended to experience hardship and death. (as in Surah 67:1-2)
In Islam, it is considered a sin to tease one’s parents. So is a wife being rebellious to one’s husband. For men, wearing silk and gold is a sin (but curiously, not for women). Eating pork is another. This is not a complete list, and I can list from Christianity too.
It is, as I said before, whimsical. What difference would it make to an omnipotent being if I ate pork? Why would such a being care, or even need to care? This is a petty reason to punish an entire species to the degree that we can suffer greatly, in a variety of fashions.
If we have been created, it would seem that we have either A: been created by a being that as set up arbitary rules for their own amusement, punishing us just because, or B: our creator didn’t do a great job.
You mix up punishment for breaking God’s rules with suffering due to health imperfections and forces of the environment.
Can you formulate a clearer logical argument to arrive at either A or B?
A completely arbitrary one. One that permits God to allow the deaths of thousands of children every day through his inaction, via disease and starvation. Why does God hate the idea of eating pork? Why not mushrooms, or lettuce?
How is the declaration by an omnipotent being that you can’t eat certain foods NOT frivolous? Why should God care about this, much less use it as a reason to punish humanity?
Is this how you present your arguments and conduct your discussions, pour out your dogmatism and expect others to show you where you might have gone wrong? I don’t think I have time for such intellectual laziness.
The evidence is against an intelligent designer, be that a deity or something else. This apparently intelligent designer failed to demonstrate a great deal of intelligence.
If we get to dive deeper into the metaphysical and theological questions, why would God choose to punish, en masse, an entire species, because God decided, on a whim, what is and is not a sin? It is ironic that there are posts here against abortion, considering that through inaction, God allows thousands of children to die to from disease and starvation, every single day.
When I pondered and prayed to God about this issue, I came to the conclusion that there is no problem of evil….no problem whatsoever.
If all was well….like if everyone was protected miraculously when an earthquake happened…and if everyone was protected miraculously when a flood happened, and so on…
Then the test on each of us will vanish in thin air…it would be obvious as 1 +1 =2, that someone is protecting us and the issue of putting forth intelligent faith of our lives and of signs around us would not exist…
again, it would then be absurd to think there is a test.
Thus, there is no problem of evil…I can understand that it is emotionally troubling and THAT is part of the test but there is no problem intellectually speaking.
I don’t have time to debate this or argue this but I felt I wanted to pass this on to all my fellow human travelers.
I hope we all have happy travels in our tests and I hope we all choose to have a happy destination for each of us.
Blogging Theology 
What is the problem, do you see some contradiction or disconnect?
LikeLike
Yeah.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t. A painting indicates a painter only because I’ve watched painters create paintings. Same thing with buildings and architects. The data I’ve collected indicates that a painting must have a painter. I’ve never watched a universe be created, neither has anyone else I’ve known, or that I’m aware of in history so there is no data to indicate the universe must have a creator.
Also with a painting even if One doesnt see a particular painting painted, one can typically trace it back to the artist. But the universe has several competing claims as to who created it. They can’t all be right, but they can all be wrong.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Neato. So bin logic then. Good luck with your agnosticism.
LikeLike
Oh, no, I’m an atheist, but I appreciate the sentiment, it has been serving me well so far
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oooh right. So you just jump to conclusions all willy-nilly. Well, good luck with THAT then 😂
LikeLike
Why would you assume I jump to conclusions all Willy nilly? It sounds like you may be the one who has issues with jumping to conclusions
LikeLike
Not really. You’re there banging on about collecting data, but you assume the non-existence of God because of a lack of empirical evidence. If you were such a (consistent) fan of empiricism, I should think you’d at least hesitate to take a position of denial.
Oh well.
LikeLike
You know absolutely nothing about how or why I became an atheist. You just made all these assumptions about me based off of one comment that I made.l, that seems like the definition of jumping to conclusions. I understand you think I came to the wrong conclusion, I think you did too, no hard feelings. But it took me really 5 years of wrestling and researching and thinking and struggling before I said I was an atheist out loud. An action that o knew would strain several relationships with family and friends. Atheism is not a conclusion that I reached easily or quickly, or without much thought. Perhaps you should learn more about a person before you make your assumptions
LikeLiked by 2 people
Perhaps you should read your initial comment again and then not be so indignant about giving clear indications that your decision was given impetus by dependence solely on lack of empiricial data.
LikeLike
Indeed – who would deliberately design a natural world where the slightest variable can trigger a variety of genetic disorders, which can afflict everyone, even child, for which the best answer is arbitrary measures of ‘sin’?
LikeLiked by 4 people
You are mistaken. You have thousands of genetic ‘variables’ every day that are corrected thanks to the extremely efficient DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms the designer equipped you with.
LikeLike
And yet when they fail – as they do, for people all around the world, every single day – the consequences can be dire.
This isn’t even to start on our vulnerability to disease and injury.
LikeLike
“This isn’t even to start on our vulnerability to disease and injury.”
What sort?
LikeLike
We are as a species vulnerable to a whole host of diseases. We are limited in our range of survivorable temperatures. This doesn’t strike me as a result of Intelligent design.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thermoregulation is an excellent example of design.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The ability to regulate blood/sugar levels could be considered the same, yet this is something that goes wrong as well, leading to diabetes. If we are to accept the presence of a designer, they are either A: not very skilled, given the flaws in human biology (to say nothing of the biology of other animals).
This extends further to the natural world at large. Our environment is inherently dangerous. Our planet experiences tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Asteroids could potentially hit the earth at any moment. None of these things strike me as the result of ‘intelligent’ design.
LikeLike
> flaws in human biology
Like what?
LikeLike
I’ve already explained this. We are susceptible to diseases that can cripple and kill us. We are vulnerable to cancers. The tiniest misalignment in our brains can trigger epilepsy. Shall I continue?
LikeLike
No, you haven’t. What kind of misalignment do you mean?
LikeLike
Yes, I have. I’ll break down the most salient point. If we are the product of a design, we are not a good design. Are we not susceptible to diseases that can kill us? To conditions that limit our lives? Do we not live on a rock that can kill us en masse through natural disasters?
LikeLike
Design doesn’t mean immortality.
LikeLike
Never said it did. It might be nice though, to be designed in such a fashion that means we aren’t going to suffer from cancer, or have a planet designed so that we don’t face earthquakes.
LikeLike
Can you think of a design that leaves no possibility for cancer?
LikeLike
Are you telling me an omnipotent being (which is what God is supposed to be) can’t come up with such a design?
LikeLike
No, I’m asking how would you go about improving what you view as bad design to better fight cancer?
LikeLike
But that’s not the issue is it? A being that is all-powerful should have been able to design us so as to not be afflicted by issues like cancer. That’s the issue. Either God is unable to do this, which calls into question God’s omnipotence, or God is unwilling to do this, unless we jump through hoops.
LikeLike
Ok if you don’t want to defend your views.
As to your question: no, it is not beyond God’s ability, but in the purpose to test us He created life but also death; so naturally however optimally designed, we are intended to experience hardship and death. (as in Surah 67:1-2)
LikeLiked by 1 person
How am I not defending my views? I never claimed to be an omnipotent being capable of creating the cosmos.
The rules of this test are completely arbitrary. They are whimsical.
LikeLike
What rules are you referring to?
LikeLike
In Islam, it is considered a sin to tease one’s parents. So is a wife being rebellious to one’s husband. For men, wearing silk and gold is a sin (but curiously, not for women). Eating pork is another. This is not a complete list, and I can list from Christianity too.
It is, as I said before, whimsical. What difference would it make to an omnipotent being if I ate pork? Why would such a being care, or even need to care? This is a petty reason to punish an entire species to the degree that we can suffer greatly, in a variety of fashions.
If we have been created, it would seem that we have either A: been created by a being that as set up arbitary rules for their own amusement, punishing us just because, or B: our creator didn’t do a great job.
LikeLike
You mix up punishment for breaking God’s rules with suffering due to health imperfections and forces of the environment.
Can you formulate a clearer logical argument to arrive at either A or B?
LikeLike
You miss the point. These rules are frivolous. Why would it matter to a deity if I ate pork or not? My logic stands.
LikeLike
There are reasons – God, your Creator, knows best. It’s a test.
LikeLike
A completely arbitrary one. One that permits God to allow the deaths of thousands of children every day through his inaction, via disease and starvation. Why does God hate the idea of eating pork? Why not mushrooms, or lettuce?
LikeLike
Substantiate your statements (e.g., the proscription of pork is frivolous; the creator should not care about such matters, etc.) to avoid dogmatism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How is the declaration by an omnipotent being that you can’t eat certain foods NOT frivolous? Why should God care about this, much less use it as a reason to punish humanity?
LikeLike
Is this how you present your arguments and conduct your discussions, pour out your dogmatism and expect others to show you where you might have gone wrong? I don’t think I have time for such intellectual laziness.
LikeLike
That seems like an excuse to avoid the argument.
LikeLike
Let me know when you have an argument. 🙂
LikeLike
Ah, you must mean you want me to repeat myself? 😉
LikeLike
Do that with substantiation.
LikeLike
So like I like, repeat myself 😉
LikeLike
“Problem” of evil/suffering. Aw. Cute. You must be new to this whole theology/philosophy thing. Or you’re a troll.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually been having healthy discussions here for some time.
LikeLike
Glad to hear it. Read it. You know.
LikeLike
Darthimon , would the problem of evil be your best evidence against the existence of God ?
LikeLike
The evidence is against an intelligent designer, be that a deity or something else. This apparently intelligent designer failed to demonstrate a great deal of intelligence.
If we get to dive deeper into the metaphysical and theological questions, why would God choose to punish, en masse, an entire species, because God decided, on a whim, what is and is not a sin? It is ironic that there are posts here against abortion, considering that through inaction, God allows thousands of children to die to from disease and starvation, every single day.
LikeLike
When I pondered and prayed to God about this issue, I came to the conclusion that there is no problem of evil….no problem whatsoever.
If all was well….like if everyone was protected miraculously when an earthquake happened…and if everyone was protected miraculously when a flood happened, and so on…
Then the test on each of us will vanish in thin air…it would be obvious as 1 +1 =2, that someone is protecting us and the issue of putting forth intelligent faith of our lives and of signs around us would not exist…
again, it would then be absurd to think there is a test.
Thus, there is no problem of evil…I can understand that it is emotionally troubling and THAT is part of the test but there is no problem intellectually speaking.
I don’t have time to debate this or argue this but I felt I wanted to pass this on to all my fellow human travelers.
I hope we all have happy travels in our tests and I hope we all choose to have a happy destination for each of us.
Peace
LikeLike
Can’t explain you things happened. Ergo, God.
LikeLike