by jambon1 319 Replies latest jw friends
Sab - let me put it another way.
When your caring designer made the earth she had the option of including parasites that kill and disable humans or not including parasites that kill and disable humans.
Why do you imagine she decided on option B?
If on the other hand you accept the truth of unguided evolution the problem goes away and we are left wondering what you are trying to say.
When your caring designer made the earth she had the option of including parasites that kill and disable humans or not including parasites that disable humans.
When did I try to prove that my designer cares? (within the thread, that is) I am simply saying that tsetse flies are not proof that he doesn't. I firmly believe in a design, which just means a purpose. It's not illogical to believe that purpose involves suffering. In fact I think it's safe to say that suffering IS part of the purpose. All the horrible stuff here is required because it's happening and has happened.
I operate on the notion that very little will ever appear outwardly moral. That doesn't seem to be the way life works. Morality is something you bask in after a hard days work. Not something you woke up one day with.
-Sab
If on the other hand you accept the truth of unguided evolution the problem goes away and we are left wondering what you are trying to say.
God put the baked potato in the oven and set the knobs. What happens beyond that point is unattended, but not unguided or without purpose.
-Sab
Sab,
A pefect, loving designer would not:
1. Create something without foresight of the suffering his creation could cause.
2. Create something that had to cause suffering out of necessity for its own survival.
These flies serve no purpose but to their own ends. Even reciprocal altruism arises in nature from a selfish desire of a species to protect its own life, or its genetic descendants.
Why should purpose involve suffering? Is there a law somewhere about that? Show it to me. Your position that suffering is required because we suffer is rather unfounded. If you were coming from an evolutionary standpoint, I could understand. However, this all seems a bit too clumsy for a grand designer.
Sab - you need to ruthlessly apply Occam's razor to your ideas.
A pefect, loving designer would not:
1. Create something without foresight of the suffering his creation could cause.
Lets stay away from words like "perfect" and "love" for now. They all lead into boring semantics. A creator creates, for good or for evil. A father allows his son to scrape his knee. That is suffering on a small human scale. I believe there to be a much greater, but similar concept on a celestial scale.
2. Create something that had to cause suffering out of necessity for its own survival.
Again, you seem to have very specific definitions as to what constitutes a loving and caring creator.
Why should purpose involve suffering?
This is a very good question. Why would suffering be needed for anything? This is where I believe the analogy of the internal combustion engine works well for simplication. It also is very tangible because there are lots of people on this planet who are against the invention entirely. Their reasons being similar to the OP complaint: widespread loss of human life. The person against cars are shrugged off as "tree hugging hippies." This is because it is rather funny to hold the opinion that we should shelve the internal combustion engine and automobile. What has it given us? Really, just about everything when you think about it.
Roads have been around for eons, but traversing them for the most part has required risking your life in a variety of ways (bandits, weather etc). The tree huggin' hippy's argument really is tunnel visioned because it ignores the prosperity that automobiles have helped make possible. Before, the ability to move around in vehicles life was completely limited.
Forget the engine, the real innovation was making them available to the common man. Which created the individual, a new speicies of human basically! So, in your opinion, was Henry Ford's idea bad or good for the world?
-Sab
Sab - you need to ruthlessly apply Occam's razor to your ideas.
I do, I put them in a pile called "fallback." It's a very large pile that needs sorting.
-Sab
Sab - what is the point of having a conversation if you completely ignore everythign that is said to you?
Exhaust gases are an inevitable by-product of burning fossil fuels.
Parasites that kill and disable humans are not necessary. Surely you can see the difference?
These flies serve no purpose but to their own ends - Flat Accent
Why should purpose involve suffering? - Flat Accent
This is a very good question. - Sab
Then have a go at answering it instead of prevaricating about Henry Ford.
Maybe you should see things from the tetse fly's point of view.. I'm sure he's quite happy with things..
