Why did god design us so badly?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abbadon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
crowonsnow said:
Are you in some sort of denial?

Everyone knows that all those angels were already in heaven, in the direct presence of their designer and that beatific vision you mention. Yet they “fell.”

This god designer’s presence and the beatific vision you mention didn’t prevent a fall even in heaven. That’s why they are called fallen angels.

So I’m still at a loss to understand how someone can hold that being diseased, “fallen” in Christian religious parlance, is not the norm, whether it be in a heaven or not. There is simply no Christian religious setting where it has not occurred. Even your savior was betrayed by his own followers.

We have evil in a heaven, evil in an Eden, and evil in the gospel stories. There is no evidence that leads a Christian person to either hope or believe that evil will end after some final judgment. Religion and evil seem bound up as one.

So I think that accounting for disease and the infirmities that befall us is something that can only occur outside of a Christian religious setting.
Click to expand...
You make some good points but I think you’re missing our point. From the catholic perspective, privation of God is the ultimate evil. Creations’ purpose is to come to know and love God-not because He’s an egoist but rather because, while we are, He’s not- He really is that GREAT and the only final satisfaction for the pain in us all. God wants creation to freely come to this knowledge and apparently the evil which can result from that kind of freedom-resulting in wheat growing alongside of tares, is worth it in the end. And Jesus apostles, BTW, ended up so completely turned towards God that all but one died martyrs deaths to proclaim his kingdom.You don’t know-you have no idea-of the magnitude of the glory and love of God.
 
crowonsnow said:
Are you in some sort of denial?

Everyone knows that all those angels were already in heaven, in the direct presence of their designer and that beatific vision you mention. Yet they “fell.”

This god designer’s presence and the beatific vision you mention didn’t prevent a fall even in heaven. That’s why they are called fallen angels.

So I’m still at a loss to understand how someone can hold that being diseased, “fallen” in Christian religious parlance, is not the norm, whether it be in a heaven or not. There is simply no Christian religious setting where it has not occurred. Even your savior was betrayed by his own followers.

We have evil in a heaven, evil in an Eden, and evil in the gospel stories. There is no evidence that leads a Christian person to either hope or believe that evil will end after some final judgment. Religion and evil seem bound up as one.

So I think that accounting for disease and the infirmities that befall us is something that can only occur outside of a Christian religious setting.
Click to expand...
I should have been more clear in my response. I’ll let St Thomas do it for me.

** FROM THE TEACHINGS OF SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS**
  1. SIN OF THE FALLEN ANGELS
    1. A rational creature (that is, a creature with intellect and will) can sin. If it be unable to sin, this is a gift of grace, not a condition of nature. While angels were yet unbeatified they could sin. And some of them did sin.
  2. GRACE AND GLORY OF THE ANGELS
    1. Although the angels were created in heaven, and with natural happiness or beatitude, they were not created in glory, that is, in the possession of the beatific vision.
    2. To possess God in the beatific vision the angels require grace.
  3. And, while the angels were created in the state of sanctifying grace, this was not the grace which confirms the angels in glory. Had the angels been created with the confirming grace, none of them could have fallen, and some did fall.
 
fhansen said:
the inclination that anyone has is always towards something they perceive as a “good”. Adam & Eve were deceived into thinking something was good which wasn’t. .
Click to expand...
then why were they held accountable?
 
cynic said:
then why were they held accountable?
Click to expand...
because of their own part in the deception. We often believe what we want in order to get what we want. They acknowledged that the fruit -being like God-was good and so bought the lie that they actually could be like God. Only a non-god could make this mistake. This act made them self-righteous instead of God-righteous. All human evil comes from self-righteousness, twisting truth until it conforms to our way. By not recognizing God as God, they did not heed the right voice but chose the one they preferred.
 
fhansen said:
because of their own part in the deception. We often believe what we want in order to get what we want. .
Click to expand...
Self deception isn’t the same as genuinely believing something is good. What they wanted wasn’t in conformity with God’s will, therefore they must have had imperfection.
 
Abbadon said:
Now before i begin this thread i can’t promise that i will be responding to everything, just the interesting ones. I’m sorry i just don’t have enough time.

I had asked previously what other evidence there was for the existence of god? I read some links and i still don’t see it i see nature and natural answers but no real need for a higher power. (Let alone the question of which higher power, if i did see a higher power, all these arguments no more support the monothiestic god than it does the other creator god’s Odin, Ra’s father and mother (sky and earth can’t remeber the names) or say the rainbow serpent…)

But there is another problem with the argument from design. 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…

There would and still could be suffering both physical and emotional pain, so god not fear his creations not suffering,

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

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…
Click to expand...
I think He did a fine job. A very fine job. 🙂
 
cynic said:
Self deception isn’t the same as genuinely believing something is good. What they wanted wasn’t in conformity with God’s will, therefore they must have had imperfection.
Click to expand...
But I don’t deny their imperfection. The point is that even God can’t make another God-His creation will always be less then Him and therefore less then perfect. He still deemed it better to create then not create and I think that we, as creation, pretty much agree and prefer our existence to non existence even in this often messed up world-which isn’t finished yet anyway.
 
ok, I haven’t read through all the posts yet (but I will eventually), so it might be out of place, but I wanted to post my initial thoughts. As an electrical engineer, of course I design electrical components. When it comes to the evaluation of design, it is usually judged based on whether the specifications given to us as designers have been met. Now given that God is omniscient and omnipotent, I don’t think I could even begin to comprehend the possible specifications or parameters placed on our design. Of course, given that He is omniscient and omnipotent, I think it’s pretty safe to believe that he met his design criteria, especially since he saw what he had made and it was good. 👍
 
buffalo said:
I should have been more clear in my response. I’ll let St Thomas do it for me.

** FROM THE TEACHINGS OF SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS**
  1. SIN OF THE FALLEN ANGELS
    1. A rational creature (that is, a creature with intellect and will) can sin. If it be unable to sin, this is a gift of grace, not a condition of nature. While angels were yet unbeatified they could sin. And some of them did sin.
  2. GRACE AND GLORY OF THE ANGELS
    1. Although the angels were created in heaven, and with natural happiness or beatitude, they were not created in glory, that is, in the possession of the beatific vision.
    2. To possess God in the beatific vision the angels require grace.
  3. And, while the angels were created in the state of sanctifying grace, this was not the grace which confirms the angels in glory. Had the angels been created with the confirming grace, none of them could have fallen, and some did fall.
Click to expand...
=.= wow you can really say just about anything and get away with it can’t you. Anything is justifiable, i mean here we have someone making statements out of no real knowledge. How does he know you need grace made in glory ra ra ra what do these things even mean.

And anyway what does it even mean to be made with natural hapiness or to be madde in glory or in a state of sanctifying grace. Since these states of creation aren’t even real you can perscribe anything as an explanation…

Theres nothing wrong with writing fables, it’s just when you expect others to accept your fables as truth… Thats what gets to me…
 
Abbadon said:
=.= wow you can really say just about anything and get away with it can’t you. Anything is justifiable, i mean here we have someone making statements out of no real knowledge. How does he know you need grace made in glory ra ra ra what do these things even mean.

And anyway what does it even mean to be made with natural hapiness or to be madde in glory or in a state of sanctifying grace. Since these states of creation aren’t even real you can perscribe anything as an explanation…

Theres nothing wrong with writing fables, it’s just when you expect others to accept your fables as truth… Thats what gets to me…
Click to expand...
This seems to rich for you. We will have to start with the basics to continue. Are you game?
 
I think the focus is wrong. Our bodies are indeed only temporary, but we have been made with ETERNAL souls, which I think wiser to care much more about…

The last thing I’m going to worry about is “Oh darn, if only I could’ve lived another 1000 years if God had only given me better replicating DNA,” when I’m up in heaven hopefully.

So, I will spend this life worrying about eternity, not this short life. 👍 At least, that’s what logic would say… 🤷
 
buffalo said:
This seems to rich for you. We will have to start with the basics to continue. Are you game?
Click to expand...
oh god no please no… that would take forever just get back to what crowonsnow is on about i was just commenting…
 
Considering where our bodies came from, I’d say nature was a pretty good choice for Him to make them.
 
buffalo said:
This seems to rich for you. We will have to start with the basics to continue. Are you game?
Click to expand...
I’ve had a change of mind

A new thread? And perhaps just me and you only participants for that thread rahter than doing it over pm? Also stops both of us having to respond to other posters…

So yea get back to me
 
The_Barbarian said:
Considering where our bodies came from, I’d say nature was a pretty good choice for Him to make them.
Click to expand...
Another circle? Or are you distinguishing between a designer designing nature and a designer designing human bodies?
 
fhansen said:
But I don’t deny their imperfection. The point is that even God can’t make another God-His creation will always be less then Him and therefore less then perfect. He still deemed it better to create then not create and I think that we, as creation, pretty much agree and prefer our existence to non existence even in this often messed up world-which isn’t finished yet anyway.
Click to expand...
So this “fall” didn’t really change anything about our bodies? They’re the same in your view?
 
crowonsnow said:
So this “fall” didn’t really change anything about our bodies? They’re the same in your view?
Click to expand...
You’re talking about 2 different kinds of perfection. Crow, you refer to medical/physical (im)perfection, whereas hansen is giving a broader scope, refering to the fact that we are not omniscient, omnipresent and such. At least that’s my take.
 
Abbadon said:
I’ve had a change of mind

A new thread? And perhaps just me and you only participants for that thread rahter than doing it over pm? Also stops both of us having to respond to other posters…

So yea get back to me
Click to expand...
I am in. I don’t want to PM. There are others who will benefit from our exchanges.
 
Please everyone, take theology questions/comments to the Apologetics forum. Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top