Why did god design us so badly?

[Spirithound]

As a designer i could have designed at least humanity alot better. DNA is a rather poor replicator, bad mutations could be removed. Regeneration of cells could have been extended to at least 1000 years (a species that lives more makes more decisions based on the long run, and would be wiser). I would have made my children UV resistant, Perpahs even the ability to change the spectram of radiation visible. Harder skin so on so forth. Overall alot better design…

I have heard the reply we are a fallen perfection. Just how far did we fall?

Firstly, we fell…a “hell” of a long way.
(sorry for the language, but I think it serves a good purpose here)

Now, I would like to go over your improvements (and I must agree, those are really improvements) that you propose, and ask my “theme question” along the way: How much? DNA may be a poor replicator, I don’t know, I’m not a molecular biologist, but judging from the amount of birth defects and whatnot around, it must be pretty poor. So how far should it be improved? If we assign it a faithfulness rate of 90% now (but because of the actual rarity of said birth defects, I’d actually say it’s quite higher), would you say God should make it 95%? Then you’d want it at 98%. In fact, the only point at which you’d be satisfied is 100%, isn’t that right? Next, you want to live for 1000? I have better things planned (which I hope mesh with God’s plans) after year 101. But would you be satisfied with 1000? Why not 1005? Why not 1030? Why not eternity? (Please refer to my plans above). Do you have any proof about your assertion about the wisdom of long-living species? A tan is considered SPF4. What do you want? SPF 10? 30? You’re going to need alot more than that to bask in God’s Glory. I can’t figure out what your point about the radiation is, but it seems to be some sort of super-power…but no worries, there’s no radiation in Heaven. Harder skin? How hard? you want birchskin? Play a D&D Druid. Or would you prefer diamond-strength skin? There are no glass shards to rip your feet in Heaven.
Overall, we’ve fallen a “hell” of a long way.

 

[BlaineTog]

Everyone seems to be missing the point…

It’s not about your bodies run okay, of course they run okay.

What I’m tlaking about is the “design” aspect of it.

Fine perhaps it;s not that poor a desing (I still think it is but i will concede that many people like the biology of humanity) but it is still far from perfect… What a shoddy creation…

Can you get the point?

Ahem

If people were “better” made, they might go around thinking they need God even less than they currently think they do, and that would be really, really stupid of them.

The human body is less than perfect because the human soul is less than perfect. Physical existence mirrors spiritual existence because the two are intertwined, and because we have a more immediate experience of the former. If the human body were perfect, then we might be inclined to think that the human soul is perfect. But it is not, it is fallen and marred. If the human body were perfect, existence would be lying to us, and God doesn’t lie.

 

[AndyF]

No one’s age qualifies them to critique God.

Some thoughts.

In many instances in OT God relented to criticism and allowed for a change of rules because of man’s hardened heart. Somewhere along the line someone threw caution to the wind in order to have his case(a negative critique) considered and have this change realized.

Also one should consider God’s humanity. If our “Father” is not open to criticism, could He rightly assume the title in every sense? Should we hold our comments in reserve, somehow that if we do not voice our thoughts perhaps they will not be seen? Should we don an attitude of self preservation in our commune with the Father, never relaxing and measuring every plodding word, or accept the title in all sincerity as we would a human father.? Is the title of human Father a catch-all or trap to the unsuspecting man to have him drop his guard by revealing what is in his heart.?

It should be noted that it is in vogue in our society to see criticism as negative, but this hasn’t always been this way.
So stating the criticism that God has made a good universe is also appropriate.

Lastly, it assumes that the same thought processes that would summate to a positive, are now at fault because they summate to a negative. What is occurring in reality is that before hand we are receptive to the positive, and anticipate the rejection of the negative. Some would think this ventures into discernment, but really is of simple issue of logic and reason.

AndyF

 

[crowonsnow]

Abbadon,

Good observation. There are lots of perplexing contradictions like that in religions. I’ve asked the same question and gotten pretty much the same responses you’ve gotten here.

Religious loyalists do think about this question, the proof being that they imagine things like heaven where all our infirmities and imperfections are removed. So they obviously recognize the fact that our condition is not optimal, and imagine a heaven where it all gets fixed.

Even god ideas themselves are proof that religious people would like to improve on their condition, and recognize its flaws and limitations. Gods incorporate the changes humans would like to see made to their present condition. Pretty much all of religion is proof that your observation has been made before.

So religionists do make the same observation, they just have different coping mechanisms to deal with it.

 

[MarcoPolo]

So religionists do make the same observation, they just have different coping mechanisms to deal with it.

Interesting psychological take. Do only religious people try to cope with imperfections, or do non-religious people have coping mechanisms too?

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

If you were a “new-and-improved” human that lived for thousands of years, you’d still think life was too short. You’d want to know why you weren’t harder than diamond and stronger than titanium and why you required food or oxygen to survive.

I think what you’re really asking is, “why does God allow suffering and death?”

 

[crowonsnow]

Interesting psychological take. Do only religious people try to cope with imperfections, or do non-religious people have coping mechanisms too?

My thoughts are my own. Obviously I don’t think for anyone else or for all non-religious people.

I think it comes down to a person’s notion of “perfection.” To me it’s a myth. But it is a word that has good communicative value.

How, for example could humanity and the universe be a “fallen perfection?” How does perfection become imperfect? How does it “fall?” If this happens then there was no perfection to begin with. So obviously there never was an original perfection.

If heaven is a perfect place how did it spawn evil disobedient angels? How did a perfect god manage to make imperfect angels? If a Garden of Eden was perfect whence cometh a serpent and disobedience?

Seems wherever one finds perfection in religion one finds imperfection contained therein. Religiously speaking, perfect fruit always contains the seeds of imperfection. That’s contradictory.

I personally cope by having hope and confidence in the future, by seeing myself connected to it, by being part of a loving family, by practicing generosity, curiosity, honesty, patience, etc. I just attempt to do those things that I believe make the human condition more tolerable and promising.

 

[crowonsnow]

I think what you’re really asking is, “why does God allow suffering and death?”

That statement strikes me as an example of cognitive dissonance, which I personally see as being more prevalent among religionists than non-religionists.

If perfection is that which cannot be improved upon, obviously a god that allows suffering and death can be improved upon by having a god that does not allow suffering and death.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I personally cope by having hope and confidence in the future, by seeing myself connected to it, by being part of a loving family, by practicing generosity, curiosity, honesty, patience, etc. I just attempt to do those things that I believe make the human condition more tolerable and promising.

Those are all good virtues.
For what it’s worth, maybe Aquinas might give you a more satisfactory answer to how evil can exist in a world created by a perfect God. He wrote about this issue 900+ years ago.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Oh please our livers and kidney’s fail so easily, a flaw in our genetic replication creates cancer, exposure to to much UV causes skin cancer…

Am i the only person who sees a ridiculous amount of design improvements that could be made to a human.

Hi Abbadon,
No, you aren’t the only person who sees this. The answer is that we are a result of evolution. That raises the question of why God would allow us to be designed by the processes of evolution rather than making us perfect.
One answer I can offer is that we’re supposed to be mortal. If we were designed perfectly, we wouldn’t be mortal. The bible teaches us that we’re in this mortal state because of sin. We can get out of it, and get a perfect immortal body by turning to God. Maybe it makes sense that God distanced himself from our design by using evolution, since God can’t create something broken, can He?
It’s very mysterious, and this answer might not be perfect, but I think life is very mysterious, and its all about searching for the answers.

 

[Scottgun]

Another example of denying the existence of God while running around in His skirt.

 

[steveandersen]

Oh please our livers and kidney’s fail so easily,

Billions of humans seem to be walking around with perfectly well functioning livers and kidneys.

a flaw in our genetic replication creates cancer,

Errors in gene duplication are essential for genetic viability and evolution.
If that “flaw” didn’t exist neither would we

exposure to to much UV causes skin cancer…

Exposure to UV also creates vitamin D. The range of skin colors we have developed is a beautiful balance of between too much and too little UV and closely correlates with where your ancestors evolved.

If pale people want to spend too much time in the sun in low latitudes without sunscreen or a shirt I don’t see how that is God’s problem.

Am i the only person who sees a ridiculous amount of design improvements that could be made to a human.

Our basic design is fairly robust and has survived and developed over a very long time.
Any “improvements” we could think of might not be the best for our long-term survival. It would be unnatural selection.

Do we carry genetic baggage? Sure of course, we are made of the earth and our bodies are natural products of our surroundings.

Why is this a surprise to you and what does that have to do with God?

 

[Newbie2]

What does age have to do with cricquing design? I can make an equally informed decision just as you can. Infact possibly a better one as in my past 20 years more information has been available to my supple young mind that was in 1970…

Just as my little brother when he is around 16 can make just as an informed descion.

You are beign equally arrognant in your assumtion that your age makes you more fit to critique design.

I never meant to imply i was ridiculously wise, I’m just saying from a design point of view, the human form is a poor creation for someone who is all powerfull…

I guess God should have designed us with better spelling and grammar…

Your initial assertion is that we have a flawed design, but how do you know we were not designed to fail at 80 or so? Sure, we could have been designed to last longer. That doesn’t negate the beautiful and marvelous bodies that we do have. If God wanted to, he could have given us Terminator bodies that don’t wear out for hundreds of years. (You know, hyperalloy combat chassis and the like ) But he didn’t.

He could have made our earthly bodies immortal, if he wanted. Perhaps the reason is so that we could experience the benefits and trials of youth, middle-age and old age.

Not to mention that perhaps the “flawed” design, as you put it, is self-improving. Not that long ago (in relation to the time we’ve been around as mankind) people living past their 50s was a pretty good accomplishment. Now, late 70’s and beyond is commonplace.

Maybe he gave us a flawed design to see how we could improve ourselves and our surroundings.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Maybe he gave us a flawed design to see how we could improve ourselves and our surroundings.

Or maybe it was to give us something to do. If the world were “perfect” what would we occupy ourselves with?

 

[Hastrman]

Or maybe it was to give us something to do. If the world were “perfect” what would we occupy ourselves with?

This kind of thinking imputes authorship of evil to God, that it’s some kind of “test” or something.

:banghead:

The world doesn’t work the way it’s supposed to, remember? We broke it!

All questions of theodicy (why do bad things happen to good people?) are adequately explained by the fall of humans and devils. Which is adequately explained by free will.

 

[lizaanne]

Anyway the point is. IF this creation is designed, it is a poor design and would in no way win a design award in a relative field of being creation. I argue that I given the resources and budget of a god could do a much better job.

Now i would love to hear your thoughts…

The answer is really very simple.

We aren’t meant to be here forever. We await a glorified body. God did not make us for here, He made us for Heaven. I think His design is quite sufficient for where we need to be at the moment.

~Liza

 

[BlaineTog]

If perfection is that which cannot be improved upon, obviously a god that allows suffering and death can be improved upon by having a god that does not allow suffering and death.

Unless the existence of suffering is ultimately more perfect than the forceful lack of suffering, which is the Christian contention. Suffering and death hurt, but pain doesn’t necessarily mean something is “bad.” An easy example is chili: a lot of the reason it’s good is because it’s so spicy that it hurts. Another easy example is surgery: yeah, it hurts (it especially hurt before anesthetics), but it’s ultimately for the best.

 

[Spirithound]

Firstly, we fell…a “hell” of a long way.
(sorry for the language, but I think it serves a good purpose here)

Now, I would like to go over your improvements (and I must agree, those are really improvements) that you propose, and ask my “theme question” along the way: How much? DNA may be a poor replicator, I don’t know, I’m not a molecular biologist, but judging from the amount of birth defects and whatnot around, it must be pretty poor. So how far should it be improved? If we assign it a faithfulness rate of 90% now (but because of the actual rarity of said birth defects, I’d actually say it’s quite higher), would you say God should make it 95%? Then you’d want it at 98%. In fact, the only point at which you’d be satisfied is 100%, isn’t that right? Next, you want to live for 1000? I have better things planned (which I hope mesh with God’s plans) after year 101. But would you be satisfied with 1000? Why not 1005? Why not 1030? Why not eternity? (Please refer to my plans above). Do you have any proof about your assertion about the wisdom of long-living species? A tan is considered SPF4. What do you want? SPF 10? 30? You’re going to need alot more than that to bask in God’s Glory. I can’t figure out what your point about the radiation is, but it seems to be some sort of super-power…but no worries, there’s no radiation in Heaven. Harder skin? How hard? you want birchskin? Play a D&D Druid. Or would you prefer diamond-strength skin? There are no glass shards to rip your feet in Heaven.
Overall, we’ve fallen a “hell” of a long way.

Just thought of this, but I find it quite remarkable that we can survive on just 30% of our lungs, kidneys, and liver (and probably some other organs too).

 

[crowonsnow]

Billions of humans seem to be walking around with perfectly well functioning livers and kidneys.

When I think of something “perfect” I consider something that I wouldn’t know how to improve upon. Our livers and kidneys must not be functioning perfectly else they wouldn’t become diseased and then die.

Our basic design is fairly robust and has survived and developed over a very long time.
Any “improvements” we could think of might not be the best for our long-term survival. It would be unnatural selection.

Do we carry genetic baggage? Sure of course, we are made of the earth and our bodies are natural products of our surroundings.

Why is this a surprise to you and what does that have to do with God?

I don’t think Abbadon is being surprised, merely posing a somewhat rhetorical question.

I believe ten million human infants die each year before completing their first month of life. Personally, I see a lot of room for improvement in this one statistic alone. One could argue I suppose, that our lifetimes were designed to be limited to eighty years, even if much of this period is consumed with disease, injury, etc. But for millions of those “robust designs” to fail at so early a stage certainly gives pause.

And then there’s our use of medicines and hospital. We all use these things and they improve our lives, even extending them. It was only a few generations ago when males in the US could expect to live to the ripe old age of 49. The fact that we have even a need for medicine and healthcare argues against our bodies being well designed.

 

[crowonsnow]

Just thought of this, but I find it quite remarkable that we can survive on just 30% of our lungs, kidneys, and liver (and probably some other organs too).

But we die without insulin, which many of our bodies suddenly stop producing.