Why would predatory behavior be considered in a design? Animals living entirely on plants makes more sense. I just can’t see the purpose of incorporating in the design animals eating other animals. On the other hand, an opportunity for alternate sources of food could have developed independently of any purposeful design.
By stating that the laws fail, you’re saying explicitly that the intelligent designer got it wrong, but if God isn’t perfect then God isn’t necessary and therefore God is created. Can’t see your theology catching on. The laws of nature are not flawed.
You’ve no way of knowing that, and I doubt whether any victims saw the laws of nature as flawed. You’re the first person I’ve ever met who thinks the laws could and should somehow be conscious of people and animals.
How do you know that God suspends or breaks any laws to work a miracle? Why would God break or ignore his own laws?
Jesus is God, he doesn’t need to brag. You’re welcome to continue claiming that Jesus blurts out an aside which has nothing whatsoever to do with his subject, but Jesus never once does that in all the gospels. We better drop this point as we’re just playing ping-pong now.
Having faith that explanations can be found isn’t an appeal to ignorance, whereas the claim that things not yet explained are therefore inexplicable would be an appeal to ignorance. You’ve no way of knowing that “Nature as a whole is not self-explanatory”.
*In that case Jesus didn’t work miracles.
Definition of miracle: “An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.” Jesus told the Apostles they would perform miracles in His name.
Compassion.
Sounds more like a preference on your part than an argument against design.
Let me guess, you are probably vegan and don’t like the idea of some animal consuming another.
No, it follows alrgiht. There’s no reason why perfection can’t create perfection, in fact many would argue that perfection cannot logically create imperfection. But either way, your intelligent designer cannot possibly be omnipotent if he is incapable of designing perfection. God is without limit.
No again. Your claim was that disasters “are undoubtedly flaws from the point of view of the victims”. Many of those victims were Catholics, so please post the testimony that leads you to claim that all those Catholics undoubtedly saw them as flaws.
Again this doesn’t follow. Just because a miracle cannot be explained does not mean that God broke or suspended any of his laws. It just means it can’t (yet) be explained.
God is love all of the time, not just when the moment takes him.
No he isn’t.
Nope once more. Christ did not die on the cross to explain Nature. We are saved by his blood, not by an explanation of Nature. Explaining Nature has nothing to do with salvation.
I can imagine a scenario that beings exist in peace and they don’t eat each other because they are sustained by God. Is that logically impossible?
“in every respect” are the key words. Natural laws are an example. All created beings and things are finite and have limitations. Otherwise they would co-exist with God forever.
God is not incapable of creating absolutely perfect beings any more than God is incapable of destroying Himself. Omnipotence does not entail absurdity.
We can know that physical nature as a whole is not self explanatory because it has potency/potential in its nature. It grows, it changes, it evolves. A perfect antithesis of nothing does not have potency.
Evolution is Gods method of creating. God is not a designer.
The universe is an evolving expression of physical possibility. That is in fact what God created. God did not design it in the same sense that an artist would draw a cow. The possibility of a fly exists in physical reality. That possibility have been actualized because the right circumstances have been actualized.
It is correct, at some level, that our ability to explain nature has nothing to do with salvation but that would be because our salvation does not depend upon having knowledge of nature – Christians don’t believe that having gnosis of some kind or other is what saves us.
Why universe should ever evolve?
That is not correct. How human can be the outcome of creation if God didn’t design?
That is all right. Consider the scenario in which all creatures are in perfect love with each other. Why God didn’t create us in that form considering that He is Love.
“For by one offering he has made perfect forever those who are being consecrated.” - Hebrews 10
You’ve done nothing to show that even those few ex-Catholics support your claim that disasters “are undoubtedly flaws from the point of view of the victims”.
What? Never said anything of the kind. You gave a definition of miracle as “An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency” and I replied “Just because a miracle cannot be explained does not mean that God broke or suspended any of his laws”.
Correct, you made a non sequitur.
You know very well that I’ve repeatedly supported it many times in previous post, and as I said there’s no point in continuing playing ping-pong with that verse, it’s already all been said.
Yikes. Never expected to hear a Catholic say that Christ’s sacrifice is irrelevant to belief.
How is it an explanation to say that a fly exists because there were the right circumstances for its potency to be actualized? To be frank, it seems like a complicated way of saying it’s there because it’s there because it’s there.
Agreed, scripture talks of God as creator, not designer.
It is absurd to compare human perfection with divine perfection. Key word: " absolutely".
Loss of faith is an adequate reason.
So you believe the miracles attributed to Jesus and the Apostles have a scientific explanation?
So you don’t believe God permits suffering and disasters?
Vague assertions are also worthless. Please cite one example.
Irrelevant. In this context belief in God is the subject not salvation.
Misrepresentation. In this context belief in God is the subject not salvation.
Irrelevant. The present topic is the significance of the statement
“Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they labour not, neither do they spin. But I say to you, that not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed as one of these…” - Jesus
How is that related to salvation?
So God had no plan for Creation? And Revelation has no purpose?
Indeed, what would be the point of creating without a plan for the Creation?So God had no plan for Creation? And Revelation has no purpose?