Definition of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Almost-there
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the overwhelming majority of all living creatures, since life first began, would (given the choice) collectively choose to have their time over again.

Yes, with suffering.
So if you are born, suffer horrribly and then die, that is worth reliving again and again and again.

Seriously?

What kind of philosophy could possibly countenance eternal misery as a specific and personal choice?
 
Last edited:
Good design you say? Bradskii raises a quizical eyebrow.
We see the mess the world is in today. We have the power of hindsight, but supposing you had the power of creation, what would you do differently?
 
You didn’t see two words in my post - 1. majority 2. collectively
 
You didn’t see two words in my post - 1. majority 2. collectively
You were responding to a comment about the unimagineable horrors of the natural world. Using ‘majority’ and ‘collectively’ doesn’t mitigate your position at all.
 
40.png
Bradskii:
Good design you say? Bradskii raises a quizical eyebrow.
We see the mess the world is in today. We have the power of hindsight, but supposing you had the power of creation, what would you do differently?
As regards the animal kingdom? Are you suggesting that an omnipotent being could not have designed things so that it minimised animal suffering?

If you looked after animals and they suffered even to a small extent of what has been ‘designed’ for them, you would be jailed.
 
Last edited:
As regards the animal kingdom? Are you suggesting that an omnipotent being could not have designed things so that it minimised animal suffering?
We don’t like the thought that any species should suffer unnecessarily. But if you were to take away the suffering of animals, you would also have to take away human suffering. You might be able to take away natural disasters, but possibly the greatest human suffering is that which we inflict on each other.

How could we be created so that we would care for each other, and still have some kind of freedom?
 
40.png
Bradskii:
As regards the animal kingdom? Are you suggesting that an omnipotent being could not have designed things so that it minimised animal suffering?
We don’t like the thought that any species should suffer unnecessarily. But if you were to take away the suffering of animals, you would also have to take away human suffering. You might be able to take away natural disasters, but possibly the greatest human suffering is that which we inflict on each other.

How could we be created so that we would care for each other, and still have some kind of freedom?
We’re not talking about natural disasters causing human suffering. We are talking about this:

‘During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites…’

Now I say that that is a natural result of the evolutionary process. You would say that it’s by design. Am I right?

If I am, then it’s a design that not only allows for terror and agony but actually includes it as part of the design. Canine teeth are designed to tear living flesh. Venom is designed to paralize victims so that they can be eaten alive. Claws and talons are designed for ripping bodies apart.

Imagine some time in the future when we may have reached the point where we can terraform planets. We could balance the atmospheric gases so we could breathe. We could ensure plenty of water and food. If someone designed the food chain to match what we have on earth (which you would claim is designed) then they would stand accused of sadism.
 
40.png
Bradskii:
As regards the animal kingdom? Are you suggesting that an omnipotent being could not have designed things so that it minimised animal suffering?
But if you were to take away the suffering of animals, you would also have to take away human suffering.
Absolute nonsense.

If we are charged with looking after animals then we ensure that there is an absolute minimum of suffering and it doesn’t affect the human condition one iota.

Would you allow someone to tear a lamb apart whilst it screamed in terror? Would you hack a pig apart and leave it alive while you cooked parts of it?
 
Why can’t you fathom that the vast majority of living creatures live almost their entire lives free of what you call “unimaginable horrors” and, I would argue, are content with the fact that being born with pain receptors is - on balance - a very useful aspect of our biology.
 
We’re not talking about natural disasters causing human suffering. We are talking about this:

‘During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites…’
It is better to think that physical reality is governed by natural processes and is being allowed to express any number of possibilities as a matter of principle.

I think there is a God, in fact i think it is impossible for there not to be one, but at the same time i agree with you that intelligent design is an inappropriate explanation creating more problems than it actually solves. I don’t think God creates in the same way or sense that we create things.

I think there is an intelligent plan behind physical reality, but like you i reject intelligent design.
 
Last edited:
If we are charged with looking after animals then we ensure that there is an absolute minimum of suffering and it doesn’t affect the human condition one iota.
You are right, and we are also charged with looking after each other as well. If we see other people suffer because of our actions, then it tells us we are doing wrong. Our freedom to love God and love our neighbour, also gives us the freedom to do evil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top