Does God use a full disclosure policy or does he hide information?

I'm not sure what makes you think that.
All living entities are provided with all necessities

nature may have a root of constant creation and destruction, but the living entity has an entirely different nature -namely the pursuit of happiness.

IOW the question you have perhaps attempted to answer with your assumption (that god is malevolent) is "why do we suffer in this world?"

The short answer is because this world is not meant to be our home (which takes one down the path of obedience to god and all those other things that get gross materialists all sweaty and talking about how they are going to cure every disease and colonize other planets)

the problem with most atheists is that screw up at the point of theory, so regardless of their talents of critical thinking (real or imagined) they never really succeed in offering an argument

pffft

You mean like provide a planet capable of sustaining life (despite the best attempts of humans to screw it up)

lol
as if

Its kind of embarrassing how often god or his pure representative has to come down to remind us that its not a good idea to steal, murder or have sex with someone other than one's betrothed

Not sure what you are talking about
what is an example of evil nature overcoming good?

even a pig knows why its here

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

the only one with the problem are the humans ... and that's simply because they try to secure happiness not suited to their species

not sure exactly what you are talking about here, but rest assured, its the least of your problems

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

one word...money.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

besides the rest of your 'excuses', this most idiotic statement tells me everything i need to know about your delusion. besides what's really crazy is you present no valid arguments at all. it's nonsensical.

you don't know what the pig thinks or knows. that is the most stupid thing i've ever read.

and YOU know what is best suited for this species? you moron!

what's really deceptive and contradictory is the extent you will go to passive-aggressively defend 'creation' as fine or perfect that you believe or say you believe is not the true home of humans. you make any contrived and bullshit excuse for your 'creator'. you can't stand the concept that it falls short in any way, it's 'humans' that do you say.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You mean Greed and whatnot?
And how does that manage to come on the scene, eh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

geez for a supposed critical thinker, you are certainly slow on the up take this morning

anyways, perhaps we should do a poll

- Spot the happy pig

A

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

or

B

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and collect the responses and determine an average score ... this being a science discussion forum and all.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

put it this way - a sparrow doesn't have to take sleeping pills at night ... nor does it have to work a night shift

even a gross materialist will tell you (happily too, mind you) that creation has been going on quite perfectly for several billion years now

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Even babies that are about to be aborted?

 

Hurry and let the experts know how to read scripture. After all, they have only been debating most of them for 3000 years.

Quite a swollen head you have there.

As to the hidden information, I was not speaking of the delusions most literalists have. I was speaking of what God is shown to have not told A & E.

Regards
DL

 

We will not argue much on religion as we see theists the same way. I am a religionist--Gnostic Christian Deist, as my closest label, but I do not have much conflict with non believers or those of a more benign faith. It is literalists and fundamental that I like to bring down or change to think in a more sane way.

I agree that much of nature is adversorial but think of it as evolving perfection and I would not change any part of how evolution works. It work only because it has both cooperation/good and competition/evil. take either of these out of the equation and evolution would no longer work.

Regards
DL

 

think about what he just said and how that doesn't even make sense as well as your reply. one doesn't need to look at just abortion as there is death and need in massive amounts. have you noticed lifeforms die all the time either accidentally, through disease or predation?

it's not true that all living entities are provided for all their needs. there is starvation, disease even genetically, devastation from wars, abuse and neglect.

he's got his head in the clouds to justify his delusions that his creator is perfect.

 

there is no difference on a fundamental level in what you believe than religionists. you believe that it has to be this way simply because that is the state we are working with. that has nothing to do with questioning on a conceptual level if this is what is best or even moral. furthermore, this doesn't address issues of morality. life feeds off the subjugation of another life. what you call 'evolving perfection' is still dependent on a system that requires the use and death of other lifeforms and subjugation of it's environment. that has nothing to do with morality which is the core issue that religion is grappling with. it works as best as it can within the framework or supposed to. it is no different than those who find themselves in the coliseum forced to fight for their lives because they have no choice. it is not a moral system yet religionists defend it citing every possible fabrication of argument to do so.

it is a fact that nature is inherently predatorial, therefore if there was a creator of this system, then it is a predator at root. end of story.

 

As I said, on religion we have no issue to argue.

In nature and evolution, morality does not enter into the equation.
Evolution moves species or individuals within a given species to be the fittest for whatever environment is at hand. It does not care if a species uses immoral means to get there.

Candide

"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPClzIsYxvA

Physicists say that the universe is perfect in the mathematical sense that if any of the known constants or numbers were to change, none of us would be here discussing anything.

Those conditions are perfect for us and to think that that perfection stops at our atmosphere is silly.

Darwin found evolving perfection happening naturally and without a God. This was only confirmed 100 years later but it is a truth IMO.

When you were born, were you not as perfect as nature and your DNA could produce even if you had flaws. Yes you were. You then evolved that initial perfection to what you are today and that process never stops even as you approach death. You can always stop the clock, look at yourself and say that nature and your DNA are still at work doing the best they can with the conditions at hand. this is an undeniable truth that most cannot get their heads around. Some do. Good luck.

Regards
DL

 

The question is, though: What are actually our needs?

 

your rebuttal doesn't make much sense because it has nothing to do with religious issues, it would belong in a strictly technical subforum. it is no different than pointing to the sun and saying 'there is the sun' or gravity exists. really? tell us something we don't already know. religion's primary reason for existing deals with issues of morality.


also, your idea of evolving 'perfection' is conjecture. it's really just about survival.

and? so? if a car with passengers rams into a tree, it will have a reaction and may even result in body parts flying around. if you fall off a cliff, you go splat. it's called cause and effect. if you acquire a disease and there is no cure, most likely you will die. people and lifeforms don't consider these things 'perfection' either. why? because they are trying to avoid it. and if that is supposed to be the case, then it's still imperfect because they don't see it or accept it as perfection probably because they are sane. perhaps not to you.

the issue that i brought up is that i see a difference between lifeforms and inanimate reality. i don't see that as a perfect relationship, some may.

also, there is a difference in how arguments go depending on how god is defined and what responsiblities are attributed to it.

it may be that what is inherently life may have nothing to do with the creation of this universe. perhaps the creation of the universe (big bang) is an accident. perhaps, there are other universes with different laws.

as for what one considers 'perfection', that would vary on people's opinion. you seem to place a lot of adulation on existing laws of nature. you think they are 'perfect' just because it exists or something is constant. human stupidity is also a constant. it is what it is but that doesn't mean they are perfect like that deserves some type of worship or high esteem. rapists, murderers and retards exist too and along this logic, it is perfect. maybe to you.

furthermore, if you have no conceptual issues with how the universe or life systems work here, then there really is no reason for you to be posing the question you do. even most theists view it just as you do, perfection.

so do you know why you pose these questions when according to your answer there is no reason or is this your way of coming to conclusions?

who's best end? what is defined as "best"? who defines it? it's all conjecture. everything we discuss on religious issues is conjecture except for what we can strictly observe. some arguments lean more to realistic than others but it's all mostly conjecture based on defined premise.

like i said, if a creator consciously is responsible for this system then it is predatorial at root. that goes against the supposed morality of a creator. that doesn't mean it did, that's the point. that is only if you attribute that responsibility.

why most theists arguments are weak is because they forget that the bible even makes distinctions between good and evil and that this creation is identified as being compromised by the "devil". these are are all metaphors but still a way to understand the universe in a certain fashion. they have a hard time viewing god as being responsible for immorality which has to be the case if it created it or allowed it. again, that all depends on how god is defined. how most theists define god, it is immoral. because they use poor logic, they can't or won't understand that. to theists, they can make up anything and it doesn't have to add up at all as long as their beliefs have no real consequence.

what's the point of this? a lesson on evolution? do you really think i don't know how evolution works? this is the religion subform. this statement has really no tie-in with evolution and morality. i pretty much think that most people are aware that dna is working the best it can under the conditions. there is also indication in nature that it's rather downright stupid at times, there goes your belief it is perfection. i really doubt this is an "undeniable truth most cannot get their heads around."

 

Snakes may not talk and apples grow on apple trees. But these two facts do not make nonsense of the opening chapters of Genesis. The story can be enlightening on different levels. Do a search: The First Scandal.

 

If we're talking about God, then yah there are at least 3 instances where God was surprised by human response. Hah! Moses had to change God's mind as God was ready to wipe out the Hebrews and start over with Moses.

 

Yes, jayleew, human are still adoring idols. God's science lab experiment is not going so well as He'd hoped, even after Noah, then after the prophets and Jesus and more. Probably time to start over again. Who should we use?

As for Moses, since he was a man he wouldn't ask for directions, and so he didn't get very far for quite some time.

 

Every theist believes he/she has it all figured out. I call it the Paul complex. I give him credit because he at least knew that he had to consciously try not to be prideful. It was the one thing he felt he had to be rebuked to remain humble, and he took his medicine well.

 

... and lo and behold there is equal (if not more) amounts of creation.

The question is why are you so biased.

as mentioned before, the forces of creation and annihilation form a constant power in this world.

rubbish
there is air to breathe, food to eat, etc etc

Your biased focus on the inherent mortality of this world doesn't seem to factor in the aspect of creation, what to speak of the sustenance, of this world

there is also the law of action and reaction

On the contrary, you've got your head in the clouds if you lay the criteria that a perfect god would establish this world free of suffering for the conditioned living entity who is under the grip of temporary (usually off the wall) desire and its expression in a temporary world ...

IOW in a perfect world, wrong behavior awards suffering (either in this life or the next)

 

yes and even the parents who are about to abort their child, or the ants that are about to eat your chocolate bar

Conditioned life and the material world is simply about conflict of needs : I win and you lose (or vice versa). The awarding of a victor in certain circumstances (whether its the parents or the ants) and a loser in others (the unborn child or so-called chocolate bar owner) is a consequence of karma - or what we deserve and what we desire