Which seems more logical? To be honest, neither. Hence the will to believe.
Really? I think it seems more reasonable that something ultra simple has always been... but it's still hard to fathom.
The Case For God
by Farkel 47 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
drwtsn32
-
logansrun
As I've often said, even if there is no God at least there's sex and beer.
Bradley
-
Farkel
logans run,
: 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.
Hence the conundrum you mentioned.
: 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?
Didn't Gardner also write the book "Words in Which are Impossible to Understand?" :)
Seriously, Fideism goes against my natural grain, but I can find no way around it. As long as someone admits that faith can never be bound to fact, I'll have no problem. There can be no way to defend Theodicy given the information we have at hand. We just can't see the "big picture", so to attempt to debate its faults or merits is hopeless.
BibleGod(tm), on the other hand is worthy of hearty debate. The "facts" for or against such a God comes from the very book his defenders claimed he is responsible for writing.
Ouch! My head hurts!
Farkel
-
Abaddon
I'm posting off an Opera browser so this will look like shite... "Gardner also speculates that natural evil (the parasite, germ, earthquake variety) might be the unfortunate but necessary outcome of having natural law." Natural evil? Is there such a thing? Evil is; 1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct 2 a archaic : INFERIOR b : causing discomfort or repulsion : OFFENSIVE c : DISAGREEABLE 3 a : causing harm : PERNICIOUS b : marked by misfortune : UNLUCKY ... so natural evil is what exactly? I mean it's great to throw around and make sweeping statments with as Gardner chappie does, but what does it mean? Natural moral reprehensiblity is an oxomoron; natural causing harm is the only other definition that works in any meaningful sense of 'evil' as Gardner intedns to address, and obviously what causes harm to organism a doesn;t to organism b; environmental event y that wipes out organism q allows organism it's chance to evolve. A star going supernova provides heavy elements. So where's the harm? I don't think there is such a thing as natural evil; there's natural that's they way the cookie crumbles, and people grabbing an idea that should have stayed on the back of an envelope and trying to be clver about something that doesn't exist without a whole raft of suppositions. I mean, if natural evil exists I'm going to have to feel sympathy for female hyenas squeezing their pups out throught their vagina which by the miracle of evolution GOES THROUGH THEIR CLITORIS. That's pretty evil!
-
logansrun
Abbadon,
You make some good points, although I think you tend to be rather myopic about words and definitions. I respect your thoughts and think you are quite intelligent, although I think you can be a little narrow at times. Next time you get an idea, wait a second or two. Think outside your worldview at times, if just for the fun of it.
Bradley
-
IronGland
The fact that Farkel didn't call anyone an idiot or a moron in this thread is even more impressive than the caterpillar turning into a butterfly.
-
peacefulpete
There's nothing really beautiful about a hideous mucus filled catepiller that voraciously eats my garden morphing into an equally ugly flying pest to facilitate laying eggs over a wider area, only a small percentage of which have bright colors that better attract mates. And this is if it is extremeely lucky and hasn't been torn to bits by birds or had eggs layed in it's soft tissue and been eaten alive by wasp larva. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And this is the sum of the arguement for God.
-
Narkissos
Well, folks, don't forget that the idea of "God" emerged in the 6th Century BC. Caterpillars apparently managed without it before...
-
Narkissos
Well, folks, don't forget that the idea of "God" emerged in the 6th Century BC. Caterpillars apparently managed without it before...
-
Eric
To continue peacefulpete's thought, (I hope)
There are also tons of other insects which spend much of their life-cyle as multilegged crawlers and borers, inflicting ruinous plant damage, only to metamorph into winged adults for mating.
The caterpillar and butterfly just have good PR.
That is if they get past the stage where nematodes by the hundreds might bore their way up their anal tract and gut them from the inside.
Personally, I'm rooting for the nematodes.
Eric