How can we reconcile the argument of intelligent design with supposed design flaws?

[Aloysium]

Aren’t you familiar with the colloquial usage of the phrase “to be in high heaven”?

Heaven has a specific meaning. I thought you might consider, posting on a Catholic site, what others would understand by the word. You may not be doing it purposefully, but your usage of the word in that manner, drains it of the power it derives through its pointing to our eternal home with God. I get it that it has no such meaning for you. The way the word “heaven” is used in your original posts suggests it refers to some illusory unending state of self-gratification. It comes across as sacrilegious and you will not be taken seriously.

Why don’t you present arguments for this? I would really like that kind of world. And only masochists would prefer pain and suffering in the name of “free will”… fortunately there are NO such masochists.

What is being spoken about here is reality, not some fanciful musings about what could be. This is life, filled with joy and suffering, courage and cowardice, love and indifference, truth and illusion, beauty and evil. Free will is about our capacity to choose a side, to overcome, to seek the true beauty behind the apparent flaw. When my belly is full, that is not when I yearn for transcendence

Really… is it “evil” to protect people by eliminating the freedom of the criminals by placing them in jail?

It is one’s obligation to discipline oneself, to limit one’s will to doing the will of God.

I guess I am just wasting my time. You don’t realize that in the world I described there are zillions of choices, even choice between the “good and evil”…

There are only two real choices in any situation. We are to give or not give of ourselves. It seems inevitable, that in the not giving, there will ensue suffering for the other. In not returning to God what is His, it is we ourselves who suffer. In that giving we unite with the Giving that brings all creation, all times and places, every moment into existence. In that communion we share in His eternal life and glory. This is about more than you conceive.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Personally, I’m unsure how many posters took the time to read the whole of Tyson’s thesis rather than just the short quote above, and although he may overstate his case at times I agree with his conclusion:

“I don’t want students who could make the next major breakthrough in renewable energy sources or space travel to have been taught that anything they don’t understand, and that nobody yet understands, is divinely constructed and therefore beyond their intellectual capacity. The day that happens, Americans will just sit in awe of what we don’t understand, while we watch the rest of the world boldly go where no mortal has gone before.” - haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/2005/11/01/the-perimeter-of-ignorance

“Either God is in the whole of Nature, with no gaps, or He’s not there at all” - Charles Alfred Coulson

As far as I can tell, there are no “design fans” who would argue that God is NOT in “the whole of nature.”

The issue seems to be in those parts of nature which are not clearly understood by science. In those cases, the naturalists or materialists are content to assign the unknowable quality of those parts to “gaps” of knowledge or “brute fact.”

Those you call “design fans” are not content with that solution and are working through it by insisting it can be intelligently explained and understood as having intelligible purpose and meaning.

If God is, as you claim, “in the whole of nature” then there is no reason why the entirety of nature cannot be intelligible, including those apparent gaps that the materialists are content to categorize as inexplicable or “brute” facts about nature.

In other words, the real “gap” endorsers are those who want desperately not to attempt any explanation of the gaps unless the explanations can be reconciled with their materialist presuppositions.

And yet, here you are claiming “God is in the whole of nature,” but somehow end up accusing those of being disreputable who wish to understand and explain how “the whole of nature” can possibly be the result of intelligent ordering and planning. Why would that be?

If God is in “the whole of nature” then I would assume his presence there will somehow come to light if we are completely open and diligent with respect to what nature does reveal to us about God.

Yet, you seem to be arguing that somehow God is in the “whole of nature” but we ought not seek him there but, rather, treat nature as if God would not be caught dead within a mile of the place and we ought to treat inquiry into nature as if God had nothing to do with it in the first place. Sounds vaguely Gnostic to me.

Again, your position just seems baffling and incongruous no matter how frequently you push this idea of God being “in the whole of nature” at the same time as you shred the work of anyone who in any way looks for evidence of his presence in the “whole of nature.”

Personally, I think you are confused on the entire issue and continue to push platitudes about God and Nature as if endorsing both the theist and materialist sides at once will somehow magically reconcile the two. I don’t expect that it will.

At some point, hopefully sooner than later, you will recognize the glaring internal incongruity of your view.

 

[tonyrey]

“hapsopens”

I like the neologism but it is typo…

 

[tonyrey]

As far as I can tell, there are no “design fans” who would argue that God is NOT in “the whole of nature.”

The issue seems to be in those parts of nature which are not clearly understood by science. In those cases, the naturalists or materialists are content to assign the unknowable quality of those parts to “gaps” of knowledge or “brute fact.”

Those you call “design fans” are not content with that solution and are working through it by insisting it can be intelligently explained and understood as having intelligible purpose and meaning.

If God is, as you claim, “in the whole of nature” then there is no reason why the entirety of nature cannot be intelligible, including those apparent gaps that the materialists are content to categorize as inexplicable or “brute” facts about nature.

In other words, the real “gap” endorsers are those who want desperately not to attempt any explanation of the gaps unless the explanations can be reconciled with their materialist presuppositions.

And yet, here you are claiming “God is in the whole of nature,” but somehow end up accusing those of being disreputable who wish to understand and explain how “the whole of nature” can possibly be the result of intelligent ordering and planning. Why would that be?

If God is in “the whole of nature” then I would assume his presence there will somehow come to light if we are completely open and diligent with respect to what nature does reveal to us about God.

Yet, you seem to be arguing that somehow God is in the “whole of nature” but we ought not seek him there but, rather, treat nature as if God would not be caught dead within a mile of the place and we ought to treat inquiry into nature as if God had nothing to do with it in the first place. Sounds vaguely Gnostic to me.

Again, your position just seems baffling and incongruous no matter how frequently you push this idea of God being “in the whole of nature” at the same time as you shred the work of anyone who in any way looks for evidence of his presence in the “whole of nature.”

Personally, I think you are confused on the entire issue and continue to push platitudes about God and Nature as if endorsing both the theist and materialist sides at once will somehow magically reconcile the two. I don’t expect that it will.

At some point, hopefully sooner than later, you will recognize the glaring internal incongruity of your view.

The challenge to the idea of God being in the whole of nature is obviously an incurable malignant tumour which causes excruciating pain and death. The solution is that God is ontologically present but not the direct cause of the anomaly. Natural evil is permitted because constant intervention to prevent such abnormalities would defeat the purpose of creating an orderly, predictable world. As so often St Thomas hit the nail on the head with one word: “incidental” which implies that a minority of purposeless and meaningless events are inevitable within the framework of Design. Sooner or later a person or an animal is bound to be in the wrong place at the wrong time…

 

[inocente]

inocente;13946040:

I see it a little differently. The following masterpiece is in the Library of Congress, as it’s the first recording of a musician playing a tune without ever actually playing the tune. To me he makes a true statement about the relationship of body and soul.

Body & Soul, Coleman Hawkins (1939) - youtube.com/watch?v=0Q7J4PgrRsY

On the contrary. “infused” implies that the human body is transformed. Animals don’t have free will or a conscience.

How does it explain when the soul emerges? Do babies not have a soul?

We’re agreed that, in your words, “body and soul are inextricably united”. Therefore it doesn’t appear valid to ask those questions as there can be no human without a soul, nor in which the soul hasn’t emerged or hasn’t been “infused”. There’s no part of our anatomy labelled soul, no one can perform a soul-ectomy. To me, the essence of what is meant by “soul” is a non-verbal construct, one of those things where words are not enough.

Creation has one Ultimate Cause but God does not cause every event directly. Otherwise He would be directly responsible for all the evil in the world. St Thomas pointed out that natural evil is incidental unlike Calvin who believed every drop of rain is willed by God…

I think you need to find a better way to express this, since previously you said “there is no reason why Creation should not have multiple causes”.

I’ve not read Thomas, but in the parts of the Summa I’ve looked at, he argues that God permits evil to produce a greater good. God therefore is ultimately responsible in the same way that He’s the ultimate cause. To argue otherwise would mean God is not omnipotent. For example, the laws of physics are described as omnipotent, meaning that as far as we know everything must obey them.

Then why did you bring up the subject which has nothing to do with the topic?

I feel at home when you do it, it’s part of your character. Apologies if it upset you, I meant in in friendship.

*Is your Christian belief based solely on your personal experiences?

Please answer each question individually so that we have a clearer understanding of your position.*

You still seem to have misunderstood my reply. Look again at your post #506. I said no to every question. So for example you asked “5. Never consoles those who mourn or are afflicted?” and I answered no, because I don’t believe God never consoles. So why are you asking me questions like “Why doesn’t He ever help us when we are in desperate need?” when I already answered that He does???

 

[inocente]

As far as I can tell, there are no “design fans” who would argue that God is NOT in “the whole of nature.”

The issue seems to be in those parts of nature which are not clearly understood by science. In those cases, the naturalists or materialists are content to assign the unknowable quality of those parts to “gaps” of knowledge or “brute fact.”

Those you call “design fans” are not content with that solution and are working through it by insisting it can be intelligently explained and understood as having intelligible purpose and meaning.

If God is, as you claim, “in the whole of nature” then there is no reason why the entirety of nature cannot be intelligible, including those apparent gaps that the materialists are content to categorize as inexplicable or “brute” facts about nature.

In other words, the real “gap” endorsers are those who want desperately not to attempt any explanation of the gaps unless the explanations can be reconciled with their materialist presuppositions.

And yet, here you are claiming “God is in the whole of nature,” but somehow end up accusing those of being disreputable who wish to understand and explain how “the whole of nature” can possibly be the result of intelligent ordering and planning. Why would that be?

If God is in “the whole of nature” then I would assume his presence there will somehow come to light if we are completely open and diligent with respect to what nature does reveal to us about God.

Yet, you seem to be arguing that somehow God is in the “whole of nature” but we ought not seek him there but, rather, treat nature as if God would not be caught dead within a mile of the place and we ought to treat inquiry into nature as if God had nothing to do with it in the first place. Sounds vaguely Gnostic to me.

Again, your position just seems baffling and incongruous no matter how frequently you push this idea of God being “in the whole of nature” at the same time as you shred the work of anyone who in any way looks for evidence of his presence in the “whole of nature.”

Personally, I think you are confused on the entire issue and continue to push platitudes about God and Nature as if endorsing both the theist and materialist sides at once will somehow magically reconcile the two. I don’t expect that it will.

At some point, hopefully sooner than later, you will recognize the glaring internal incongruity of your view.

So you’re saying that as a design fan you accept the science where there are tested explanations, but where there are not, you feel compelled to insist there must be explanations. Sure, we’re agreed, history shows that science has since filled some of the gaps in what was understood scientifically 100 years ago.

So, let’s take a design fan from 1916. He would have more gaps to fill than now, and many of his theories have since been found to be wrong, as science has filled those gaps with tested explanations during the intervening century .

Exactly the same will be true for any theories which you invent today to try to plug current gaps in knowledge. A century from now they will also have been disproved and replaced by tested explanations.

Now that would seem to indicate that design fans are always bound to be on the retreat. But also, note the 1916 design fan did not see God in any existing science but only in the gaps he filled by inventing his own theories. If you yourself don’t see God in the science which replaced his theories, then you have even fewer gaps in which to find God. A century from now, design fans will have even fewer gaps in which to find God.

I don’t see how it can be baffling or incongruous to see God in what we know rather than in what we don’t know. How is it a platitude to say that God is light shining in the darkness of ignorance? Haven’t Christians always believed that?

PS. I don’t know what to call you other than design fans. Cite the meeting where you agreed on some other title and I’ll use that instead.

PPS. God is also to be found in everything else in nature, not just in scientific theories. Music, art, literature, poetry all add to our knowledge and God can be found in them too.

 

[inocente]

I’m glad to see you get the last word. Oh wait, I have. Your turn.

Shirley it’s not over until the fat lady sings.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And yet, here you are claiming “God is in the whole of nature,” but somehow end up accusing those of being disreputable who wish to understand and explain how “the whole of nature” can possibly be the result of intelligent ordering and planning. Why would that be?

If God is in “the whole of nature” then I would assume his presence there will somehow come to light if we are completely open and diligent with respect to what nature does reveal to us about God.

Yet, you seem to be arguing that somehow God is in the “whole of nature” but we ought not seek him there but, rather, treat nature as if God would not be caught dead within a mile of the place and we ought to treat inquiry into nature as if God had nothing to do with it in the first place. Sounds vaguely Gnostic to me.

Again, your position just seems baffling and incongruous no matter how frequently you push this idea of God being “in the whole of nature” at the same time as you shred the work of anyone who in any way looks for evidence of his presence in the “whole of nature.”

Personally, I think you are confused on the entire issue and continue to push platitudes about God and Nature as if endorsing both the theist and materialist sides at once will somehow magically reconcile the two. I don’t expect that it will.

At some point, hopefully sooner than later, you will recognize the glaring internal incongruity of your view.

Based on my experience, “glaring internal incongruity” is an understatement.

 

[Solmyr]

A constant spate of miracles is possible but it would defeat the purpose of creating a physical universe in which we can choose what to believe and how to live.

This is such a shallow thinking. God’s omnipotence can easily create a world, which does not require constant meddling.

“LOOK LIKE” gives the game away! Appearances are very often highly deceptive.

Show me an example when the “seemingly rabid wolf” is actually a “cute bunny rabbit”. You are welcome to show which “seemingly evil” acts are actually benevolent. You can start with a gang-rape of a young girl. That “seems” to be pretty evil. But to prevent even ONE rape would be a real improvement on the state of affairs - unless you can bring up an argument that a rape is intrinsically good, so preventing it would be “evil”.

It needs to be explained how piecemeal improvements would be implemented in an orderly universe without undermining its predictability. The archsceptic David Hume pointed out that the laws of nature cannot cater for every contingency. In other words an earthly Utopia is an infantile fantasy.

The laws of nature of contingent on the creator - in the Catholic worldview. And God can create anything and everything except logical contradictions.

There is only one true obstacle to this utopia. It is the unbridled freedom given to the inhabitants. But only an uncaring, indifferent (or downright evil) creator would make such a blunder. (By the way, you complain that I pointed out your obsession and called it what it is. And you see nothing wrong with calling an “approximation” of heaven to be an infantile utopia. :tsktsk: Pot calling a kettle black?)

 

[Solmyr]

What is being spoken about here is reality, not some fanciful musings about what could be.

On the very contrary. There are obvious “design flaws” and the question is what kind of an explanation can reconcile them with God’s omnimax attributes.

This is life, filled with joy and suffering, courage and cowardice, love and indifference, truth and illusion, beauty and evil. Free will is about our capacity to choose a side, to overcome, to seek the true beauty behind the apparent flaw. When my belly is full, that is not when I yearn for transcendence

So this existence does not show the sign of a benevolent and omnipotent God. The “free will” which your obsession is actually a design flaw. A loving, caring creator would only grant limited freedom.

It is one’s obligation to discipline oneself, to limit one’s will to doing the will of God.

And what does that have to do anything with our effort to eliminate murderers from society, to protect the rest?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So this existence does not show the sign of a benevolent and omnipotent God. The “free will” which your obsession is actually a design flaw. A loving, caring creator would only grant limited freedom.

God does grant only limited freedom, which is circumscribed by the Commandments of Moses and Jesus. It is likely too that God intervenes in human affairs from time to time, but to do so all the time would make us all robots subject to a Supreme Computer Designer.

There is nothing flawed about creation. The proof of this is that almost all people would a whole lot rather be alive than dead.

A truly flawed creation would make of God an insufferable and malevolent tyrant.

Is that how you regard the Christian God?

 

[Aloysium]

On the very contrary. There are obvious “design flaws” and the question is what kind of an explanation can reconcile them with God’s omnimax attributes.

So this existence does not show the sign of a benevolent and omnipotent God. The “free will” which your obsession is actually a design flaw. A loving, caring creator would only grant limited freedom.

And what does that have to do anything with our effort to eliminate murderers from society, to protect the rest?

No design flaws that I can see, given God’s plan that we join Him in eternity. I see a benevolent God everywhere. I have also seen much evil in this world; and so much goodness that arises from the challenge.

That you choose not to pursue the matter, which involves more than simply arguing on forums, is by your own accord. However, you have enough knowledge to do good when the choice comes up. Cynicism appears to frequently follow a failure to do what is necessary when the situation arises. The needs of humanity may call out to us; if we fail to respond, the guilt can be reflected back on He who gave us all life, blaming Him as we blamed the snake and the other. The blame here lies in the denial of His existence as love.

We all will die. There is but one murderer, sin.
We allowed ourselves to be seduced in the Garden.
We permitted sin to worm into our hearts when we crucified our Lord.
We all will die and there will always be those who exploit this weakness, only to be consumed themselves in the end.

 

[Solmyr]

God does grant only limited freedom, which is circumscribed by the Commandments of Moses and Jesus.

Since those commandments are not enforced, they don’t limit anything. Indeed there are limits imposed by the natural laws, but they allow a lot of freedom to do harm to others.

It is likely too that God intervenes in human affairs from time to time, but to do so all the time would make us all robots subject to a Supreme Computer Designer.

There is no sign of any interference at all.

There is nothing flawed about creation. The proof of this is that almost all people would a whole lot rather be alive than dead.

Nonsense. the sign of the innumerable flaws is our constant and successful improvements we perform on nature. A “flawless” system cannot be improved upon.

A truly flawed creation would make of God an insufferable and malevolent tyrant.

There are levels of being flawed.

Is that how you regard the Christian God?

Nope. I simply see no sign of this God. But if he does exist, and puts me on trial for my assumed “sins”, I will have a few words about his handling the world. And those words will not be terms of endearment. Currently his only “defense” is that he does not exist. And if the result of those words will be throwing me into the everlasting fire of hell, then he will add one more proof to his status of “insufferable and malevolent tyrant”.

 

[tonyrey]

A constant spate of miracles is possible but it would defeat the purpose of creating a physical universe in which we can choose what to believe and how to live.

Personal remarks are irrelevant in a rational discussion.

God’s omnipotence can easily create a world, which does not require constant meddling.

Unsubstantiated assertions are worthless. Evidence is required.

“LOOK LIKE” gives the game away! Appearances are very often highly deceptive.

Show me an example when the “seemingly rabid wolf” is actually a “cute bunny rabbit”.

Predation is not intrinsically evil.

You are welcome to show which “seemingly evil” acts are actually benevolent. You can start with a gang-rape of a young girl. That “seems” to be pretty evil. But to prevent even ONE rape would be a real improvement on the state of affairs - unless you can bring up an argument that a rape is intrinsically good, so preventing it would be “evil”.

How could it ensured that a person with free will never commits an evil act?

It needs to be explained how piecemeal improvements would be implemented in an orderly universe without undermining its predictability. The archsceptic David Hume pointed out that the laws of nature cannot cater for every contingency. In other words an earthly Utopia is an infantile fantasy.

The laws of nature of contingent on the creator - in the Catholic worldview. And God can create anything and everything except logical contradictions.

Indeed but not at the cost of consistency.

There is only one true obstacle to this utopia. It is the unbridled freedom
given to the inhabitants. But only an uncaring, indifferent (or downright evil) creator would make such a blunder.

Human freedom is not "unbridled"but it is sufficient to allow us to choose what to believe and how to live - which is the purpose of life. The alternative is to create zombies…

(By the way, you complain that I pointed out your obsession and called it what it is. And you see nothing wrong with calling an “approximation” of heaven to be an infantile utopia. :tsktsk: Pot calling a kettle black?)

**Personal **remarks (e.g. “**your **obsession”) are not only irrelevant in a rational discussion but violate the forum rule of courtesy…

“An earthly Utopia is an infantile fantasy” is an **objective **statement.

 

[Solmyr]

Unsubstantiated assertions are worthless. Evidence is required.

The evidence is God’s alleged omnipotence, which is only limited by logical inconsistencies. Do you understand this principle?

Predation is not intrinsically evil.

You misunderstand everything. I am not talking about predation, but the problem of how to tell if seemingly “malevolent” action is actually benevolent.

How could it ensured that a person with free will never commits an evil act?

Simply: “by NOT allowing that level of freedom”. By creating everyone with disposition of goodwill. Let’s take one example. The pope would not dream about kidnapping and raping a girl, because such an act would not be compatible with his nature. And he is not unique in this respect. Most people share this attitude.

The handful of others would not be missed if God would simply send them a quick heart attack. It is amazing that only Christians defend the existence of psychopaths and sociopaths - in the name of “free will”. I will repeat: you (general “you”) are obsessed with this “free will”. And this is really an objective statement.

Human freedom is not **"**unbridled"but it is sufficient to allow us to choose what to believe and how to live - which is the purpose of life. The alternative is to create zombies…

If you don’t see the difference between limited freedom and zombies, then I am just wasting my time.

“An earthly Utopia is an infantile fantasy” is an **objective **statement.

It is only your opinion.

 

[tonyrey]

Unsubstantiated assertions are worthless. Evidence is required.

It is also limited by the need for consistency of intention and purpose.

Do you understand this principle?

Personal remarks are irrelevant in a rational discussion. In this case it also violates the forum rule of courtesy.

Predation is not intrinsically evil.

You misunderstand everything.

Personal remarks are superfluous and unnecessary in a rational discussion. In this case it also violates the forum rule of courtesy.

I am not talking about predation, but the problem of how to tell if seemingly “malevolent” action is actually benevolent.

How does that problem arise if malevolent activity exists? No one has claimed it is an illusion.

How could it ensured that a person with free will never commits an evil act?

Simply: “by NOT allowing that level of freedom”. By creating everyone with disposition of goodwill. Let’s take one example. The pope would not dream about kidnapping and raping a girl, because such an act would not be compatible with his nature. And he is not unique in this respect. Most people share this attitude.

Genuine freedom doesn’t exist if no one ever contemplates or commits a crime. “compatible with his nature” implies that a person doesn’t have free will.

The handful of others would not be missed if God would simply send them a quick heart attack. It is amazing that only Christians defend the existence of psychopaths and sociopaths - in the name of “free will”.

Not all criminals are mentally unbalanced.

I will repeat: you (general “you”) are obsessed with this “free will”. And this is really an objective statement.

If that were the case free will wouldn’t exist as far as moral decisions are concerned. Everyone would be a “do-gooder” and no one would be a criminal. There would be no merit in being noble or virtuous.

Human freedom is not "

unbridled"but it is sufficient to allow us to choose what to believe and how to live - which is the purpose of life. The alternative is to create zombies…If you don’t see the difference between limited freedom and zombies, then I am just wasting my time.

Anyone who is compelled to conform to moral principles is not genuinely committed and is simply acting like a zombie. It was an atheist, Sartre, who pointed that out.

“An earthly Utopia is an infantile fantasy” is an **objective **

*statement.

It is only your opinion.

We are all expressing our opinions unless one of us claims to be infallible!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Nope. I simply see no sign of this God. But if he does exist, and puts me on trial for my assumed “sins”, I will have a few words about his handling the world.

If there is a God?

Since you are opening up that possibility, if I were you I’d be a little more temperate in my language.

It is you who will be in the dock, not God.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So, let’s take a design fan from 1916. He would have more gaps to fill than now, and many of his theories have since been found to be wrong, as science has filled those gaps with tested explanations during the intervening century .

Exactly the same will be true for any theories which you invent today to try to plug current gaps in knowledge. A century from now they will also have been disproved and replaced by tested explanations.

I am still baffled by your insistence that only theist “design fans” would be plagued by this problem when scientific-minded design fans whose pet theories concerning the nature or intelligibility of the design (as explained by some theory or other) would equally have been “disproved and replaced by other ‘tested’ explanations.”

Newton’s explanations regarding his view of the “design” of things was tested in his day and subsequently found wanting and supplanted by newer explanations which passed more stringent design tests.

The “gaps” are still there waiting to be filled by better explanations which will explain the design more completely and adequately.

If you want to attack straw men “design fans” who seek to claim design exists in nature without taking on the burden of attempting to explain anything at all about the nature of the design, then go ahead.

I would submit that those who do propose intelligent design seriously view that proposal as implying that the inherent design is, therefore, necessarily intelligible to some intelligence or other, including our own – I.e., the design can be understood precisely because intelligence underwrites it.

I think you are confusing “design fans” with brute factists who will, at some point, sooner rather than later, propose that there is no design and no ultimate explanation precisely because everything at ground just simply is and is without rhyme nor reason.

In other words, for them, God is nowhere precisely because the explanatory gap is all-encompassing – there exists no ultimate explanation precisely because there is no intelligent being underwriting “all of nature.” NO complete explanation, as far as they are concerned, is there to be had and we are just fooling ourselves by wrongly superimposing a parochial, misconstrued and limited appearance of design on what, at ground and in the final analysis, has none.

This is the real dichotomy behind the issue. Either the universe is, indeed, designed and intelligible or it is not.

If it is, science and religion both have a role to play in deciphering the meaning implicit in it.

If not, then both will be shown to be nothing more than distractions from realizing the truth of things. The question will simply be a matter of how long will the illusion (or delusion) be sustained by one, the other or both.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Nope. I simply see no sign of this God. But if he does exist, and puts me on trial for my assumed “sins”, I will have a few words about his handling the world. And those words will not be terms of endearment.

How will you get those “few words” out when your mouth will be busy chawin’ on a whole lot of humble pie?

Speaking of Humble Pie and “I don’t need no doctor…”

youtu.be/AuHBkNA9Wio

 

[magnet]

When God created Adam and Eve and guided the proliferation of humanity, His design was flawed because He killed off all life except those chosen members of Noah’s Ark.
There are subsequent massacres of humanity that God performed because of defects.

Design flaws have repeatedly been corrected by God. Has the goal of human perfection been closely approximated so that there is no need for more massacres of humanity?