The catterpillar to butterfly thing is amazing. To me, it also suggests that maybe there is something else for us when we die, or maybe we were something else before what we are now.
SS
The Case For God
by Farkel 47 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Farkel
Logan and the Running and All That,
Said:
: One of the tenets of Deism is that there was a loving, personal Creator who simply made the laws of the universe, got the ball rolling and then does not interfere with the day-to-day goings on of the universe. God would then not be responsible for any of the harmful and repugnant creatures that evolution produced. His approach would be laissez-faire.
Correct.
: But, that would also mean that God would not directly be responsible for any example of beauty and awesomeness in the natural world, including the example of the caterpiller into butterfly. (I believe it is just one species, by the way) You can't have it both ways. Either God is responsible for the good as well as the bad, or he is not responsible for either.
Incorrect.
Do you see that fatal flaw in your argument? If not, I will have to spank you. I think however. that you are smart enough to reevaluate the above argument and discover your tragic flaw in that argument.
If not, I will rub your nose in it. This is my job, you know! :)
Farkel
-
notperfectyet
I know there is a loving God.
I had 3 Children, they were more beautiful at birth then a catepillar emerging from a cocoon, and that is beautiful. So are grandchildren, families that love and support and old age if you have someone to grow old with.
I know the sound of birds in the morning, owls at night..rain at sunrise.
Kittens playing, puppies breath...
And knowing Farkel believes in God,
-
A Paduan
The evil creatures will do their thing.
Which ones are they?
Is biblegod(tm) your way of actually saying jwgod(tm) because Jwism is so in the dark - but
Anyone who claims to be more than that is a liar
?
-
rocketman
A frog hibernated and woke up as me......a prince!
-
drwtsn32
Farkel:
Yes, the caterpillar to butterfly metamorphosis is amazing. But that is not a case for god. Isn't a god by definition more complex than the sum of all the wonders of the universe? If you feel that the beauty and complexity of a butterfly demands a creator, then what about the creator? How can *he* not demand a creator? After all, he is more complex than the sum of everything in our universe.
You're getting into a problem of infinite causality. Where does it end?
-
logansrun
Dear Brother Farkel,
I know I'm being a dickhead...yes, I DO enjoy life and am awestruck by our universe, warts and all. I read this quote by Voltaire once who stated that, when everything is said and done, there is more good in life than bad. I actually tend to agree.
: But, that would also mean that God would not directly be responsible for any example of beauty and awesomeness in the natural world, including the example of the caterpiller into butterfly. (I believe it is just one species, by the way) You can't have it both ways. Either God is responsible for the good as well as the bad, or he is not responsible for either.
Incorrect.
Do you see that fatal flaw in your argument? If not, I will have to spank you. I think however. that you are smart enough to reevaluate the above argument and discover your tragic flaw in that argument.
If not, I will rub your nose in it. This is my job, you know! :)
Actually, I was thinking of a way that would reconcile a loving God with natural evil (human evil is an entirely different matter). One could make the case that a deistic God is responsible for the good we have in the sense that, by the creation itself, he made life possible with all it's delights. If I had a child and then tragically died so that I could not take care of her, I still would be responsible for that child's life and any happiness she might experience. Again, this is just a possibility I can think of off the top of my head.
Martin Gardner, philosopher, mathematicion and skeptic wrote a book entitled, "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener." In it he confesses he is a fideist. His chapter, "Why I Am Not An Atheist" would be of interest to you. Gardner also speculates that natural evil (the parasite, germ, earthquake variety) might be the unfortunate but necessary outcome of having natural law. Human evil might be the necessary outcome from having free will. Clever solution to theodicy, huh?
All best,
Bradley
-
logansrun
Watson,
You're getting into a problem of infinite causality. Where does it end?
Let's say there is no God. You still have the problem of infinite causality. Either way -- First Cause or not -- there are logical conumdrums to tackle.
Bradley
-
drwtsn32
Let's say there is no God. You still have the problem of infinite causality. Either way -- First Cause or not -- there are logical conumdrums to tackle.
Of course. But which seems more logical? That the "always existing--never caused" component is infinitely complex or infinitely simple?
-
logansrun
Watson,
Of course. But which seems more logical? That the "always existing--never caused" component is infinitely complex or infinitely simple?
Which seems more logical? To be honest, neither. Hence the will to believe.
B