Flaws with God.

Originally posted by Trickster
Perhaps you could offer answers to my other points as well?

God lets us make mistakes. This is how we learn. It is like putting the jar in front of the child. It happens every day in households. If we cannot control ourselves we are unworthy of God. That is why God forgives though. We wants us to learn without damning us and pushing us away.

Why God created the world is a question that is beyond the scope of any mortal to answer. I sometimes think that perhaps God was lonely. Jesus got lonely and I do not find it to be a flaw. God loves us and wants us to love Him back. Its a nice thing if you ask me.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Not even close to scientific fact.
Close to scientific fact:
gravity, atomic orbitals, functions of some of the different parts of the human brain, etc.

Evolution is no where near to being considered a scientific fact yet. Way to many holes and the whole problem with spontaneous regeneration. This is just as closed minded as the Christian and/or agnostic view of intelligent design can be.

Like Regret I believe that evolution is a possilbe method through which God created man, but the scientific evidence does not add up enough for me.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
...
I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
Stephen Jay Gould

Originally posted by Nellinator
He makes an assumption that humans evolved. He may be a brilliant biologist but he takes a leap of faith in saying it. Evolution is nowhere near fact despite his claim.

Incomplete scientific knowledge does not discredit fact nor theory. Argumentum ad ignorantium and god of gaps do not disprove evolution, human or otherwise. Nor geological dating of the earth. Nor astrophysical dating of the universe.

Originally posted by Nellinator
He makes an assumption that humans evolved. He may be a brilliant biologist but he takes a leap of faith in saying it. Evolution is nowhere near fact despite his claim.

Plenty of scientists seem to believe they are justified in saying it is as much fact as the theory of gravity, and they feel the evidence supports it.

Likewise in the absence of reason for it to be discounted it is as close to fact as it can get. Is there valid reason for it to be considered less then fact? No. Incomplete fact? Quite possibly, but that doesn't put it in the green room of scientific theories awaiting its chance to come on stage.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Plenty of scientists seem to believe they are justified in saying it is as much fact as the theory of gravity, and they feel the evidence supports it.

Likewise in the absence of reason for it to be discounted it is as close to fact as it can get. Is there valid reason for it to be considered less then fact? No. Incomplete fact? Quite possibly, but that doesn't put it in the green room of scientific theories awaiting its chance to come on stage.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I am not saying that evolution is an invalid theory. I am saying that the idea of evolution is an assumption. There are big holes as the beginning of life from no life. The origin of the universe for that matter. I am not against it being taught in universities and in the final years of high school, but I worry when they teach it as fact in junior highs. One my biggest issues is with the amount of evolution taught. In biological fields it should be minor in comparision to biochemistry, molecular biology, immunology, genetics and other studies that have more practical application. Evolutionary studies have advantages, but the weight put on pushing the theory is fairly ridiculous.

Because it is an important part of biology. I did physics in high school and their were theories that reoccurred the whole way through. However biology is, for many students, and easier subject then physics and dpeneding on their field (which ranges from agriculture to animal care) relevant theory. There is nothing else in the field that can take the place of evolution so it is logical it recieves such attention. To be honest I worry about children being taught religion from a young age rather then being taught to think and then decide when they have sufficient understanding. Yet I would not advocate parents be stripped of the right to teach their children it (at least not yet...)

And assumption - it is no an assumption. It is a theory that has stood the test of time. Ultimately holes don't lessen the value of a theory or reduce to "mere assumption/hypothesis", especially when the weight of evidence for the known sections supports it so well. The only thing that can reduce the right of evolution to claim to be the correct explanation of the origin and development of life is if another theory is presented that is, through research, shown to disprove evolutionary claims or provide a better explanation.

Ultimately that hasn't happened yet. Thus it will continue to be portrayed as fact because that is what it is till proven otherwise.

I know exactly what you mean, because I also took physics. However, in physics we are taught as though it was theory. We were taught the development of the theory, holes in theory, and so on. Also, it was acknowledged when a theory produced close results with being perfectly accurate. Thereby acknowledging the need for a better theory. A lot of that is absent in the teaching of evolution.
I would argue that you are confusing evolutionary study with molecular and genetic study. Evolution is overtaught and is a useless requirement for a lot of higher level university classes and degrees that really need no basis in evolution.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Regret...in your justification for human suffering you supposed that it must be necessary for the learning of empathy and compassion.

The claim that God needs anything implies he is finite and not truly infinite as you would try to push.

Besides, isn't action a result of need? If there is no need, why act? If one acts and there was no need for the act, is it worthwhile? Why create if there is no need to? If we are created for entertainment, to gain worshippers, etc. are these purposes not defined as fulfilling some need? If there are any commands, they must fulfill a need, otherwise, what is the point? Need is inherent in action, action cannot occur without need. If ex nihilo creation occurred, God must have needed something, otherwise the entire concept is ludicrous.

Originally posted by Trickster

That looks to me a somewhat controversial view. If God operates within the laws of nature, then how exactly did he create the universe? Ex nihilo? I don't think it's possible to create something from nothing, according to the governing laws of nature - though I'm open to being told otherwise.

Doctrine and Covenants 131:7-8
7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;
8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

D&C 93: 29-30
29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.
30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

Originally posted by Trickster
I'm not arguing that the existence of pain in animals is a flaw in itself - rather questioning why an all-loving God would feel the need to create things such as disease and starvation. And if he was all-powerful, he would be able to create the positive effects without the negative. (For instance, he could have created a world in which humans and dinosaurs can co-exist.)

Questions also arise as to why God doesn't intervene in massive catastrophes - in the New Testament he heals single people, but he never manifests himself as a saviour during genocide or natural disasters. The bubonic plague would be a good example.

2 Nephi 2:11
11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

Originally posted by Trickster
That's a fair enough point, but it still seems a somewhat petty experiment - God knew humans would disobey him. It's like leaving out some sweets in front of a small child and telling them not to eat any. Would it not be better for God to punish the person committing the improper action rather than allow that person to harm another?

It also still raises the point as to why God feels it necessary to have obedience - wouldn't it be better to create a human race that was able to determine for itself what is right and wrong? If not, he would have been able to minimise the effects of improper action upon innocents.

I believe this life is a proving ground. This existence is merely a test to show our ability to behave responsibly in a state with limited purview by God, where we are unsure of his presence or even his existence. Should we show our ability to behave appropriately and responsibility we will be given position equal to our capacity to be responsible.

Man is able to determine for itself right and wrong. I do not believe anyone is unable to discern such, regardless of popular belief to the contrary in some situations.

Originally posted by Trickster
But even you say that humans are the pinnacle of God's creation - surely a more humble approach would be better? Gratefulness, rather than pride, that we are the ones chosen to have such a position. (For this one I'm arguing just for the sake of argument - I can see your point).

Originally posted by Trickster
Yes, there really is no definition of God, other than that he is good. A real definition would probably help a lot of people. My original point still stands - I would rather come to my own understanding of a God, rather than subscribe to the somewhat rigid and conservative view of a deity.

ONe thing wrong with God. Who the hell invents someone, and then gives them a rule book. Wouldn't it be better to invent something that does what the manual says naturally? That's what everyone else would do.

Eg. If homosexuality is wrong and not what God wants, why does it exist in the first place? If evolution is wrong, why do people teach, study and know it? If Jesus is God, and someone we must know, why do we need to be taught it? If the clouds are a separation between God and the Earth, why are people going to quote me and ask me if the Bible actually says that, they should know naturally.

The Bible constantly says that God made us, he made our ancestors, Adam and Eve, he makes us when we're in the womb, he guides us through life, so why are we born with sin, why do we sin against people, why are we so poorly designed and so poor at following our creator?

Originally posted by Nellinator
I know exactly what you mean, because I also took physics. However, in physics we are taught as though it was theory. We were taught the development of the theory, holes in theory, and so on. Also, it was acknowledged when a theory produced close results with being perfectly accurate. Thereby acknowledging the need for a better theory. A lot of that is absent in the teaching of evolution.
I would argue that you are confusing evolutionary study with molecular and genetic study. Evolution is overtaught and is a useless requirement for a lot of higher level university classes and degrees that really need no basis in evolution.

Evolution is taught as a theory too.

Evolution is overtaught because its exceedingly obvious that people who speak out against it generally have no fricking idea what the theory says. Its reall easy to explain why a ball falls. Its a lost harder to teach some people a concept that many have never thought about and can't observe instantaneously.

Originally posted by lord xyz
ONe thing wrong with God. Who the hell invents someone, and then gives them a rule book. Wouldn't it be better to invent something that does what the manual says naturally? That's what everyone else would do.

Eg. If homosexuality is wrong and not what God wants, why does it exist in the first place? If evolution is wrong, why do people teach, study and know it? If Jesus is God, and someone we must know, why do we need to be taught it? If the clouds are a separation between God and the Earth, why are people going to quote me and ask me if the Bible actually says that, they should know naturally.

Originally posted by lord xyz
The Bible constantly says that God made us, he made our ancestors, Adam and Eve, he makes us when we're in the womb, he guides us through life, so why are we born with sin, why do we sin against people, why are we so poorly designed and so poor at following our creator?

Originally posted by Alliance
Evolution is taught as a theory too.

Evolution is overtaught because its exceedingly obvious that people who speak out against it generally have no fricking idea what the theory says. Its reall easy to explain why a ball falls. Its a lost harder to teach some people a concept that many have never thought about and can't observe instantaneously.

Evolution is a scientific theory. It describes to the best of our ability the evidence at hand. It is extremely stable and well supported. It can be used to predict occurrences as well as explain the occurrences we have uncovered from the past. Evolution should not be shrugged away as merely theory, it is robust and, given the information at hand, valid. Evolution, unless evidence presents itself to the contrary, is a fact. We have hard, solid and irrefutable evidence for very small changes in organisms as well as some evidence for fairly large changes. We do not have any evidence suggesting that evolution is not a fact. What we have are fanatic religious zealots struggling to reconcile the evidence at hand with beliefs that are contrary to what the evidence shows becoming frustrated and attacking the theory out of hand. They typically do not come up with alternative explanations that are as robust as evolution, they most often merely attack the theory.

On top of this, scientists get defensive because the attacks are most frequently ludicrous, and they overcompensate in showing that the theory is valid. What we see today is extremes at both ends. I would wager that there are scientists that do push the less credible, less valid, less supported areas as well, but the response is due in large part to the very ludicrous and wholly unsupported attacks at the theory.

Originally posted by Regret
I think Nellinator misunderstands how scientific theories work.

Evolution is a scientific theory. It describes to the best of our ability the evidence at hand. It is extremely stable and well supported. It can be used to predict occurrences as well as explain the occurrences we have uncovered from the past. Evolution should not be shrugged away as merely theory, it is robust and, given the information at hand, valid. Evolution, unless evidence presents itself to the contrary, is a fact. We have hard, solid and irrefutable evidence for very small changes in organisms as well as some evidence for fairly large changes. We do not have any evidence suggesting that evolution is not a fact. What we have are fanatic religious zealots struggling to reconcile the evidence at hand with beliefs that are contrary to what the evidence shows becoming frustrated and attacking the theory out of hand. They typically do not come up with alternative explanations that are as robust as evolution, they most often merely attack the theory.

On top of this, scientists get defensive because the attacks are most frequently ludicrous, and they overcompensate in showing that the theory is valid. What we see today is extremes at both ends. I would wager that there are scientists that do push the less credible, less valid, less supported areas as well, but the response is due in large part to the very ludicrous and wholly unsupported attacks at the theory.

To insert my own view here on evolution:
I think it makes Christians very comfortable to say "evolution is only a theory" to which I say don't let your belief blind you though. Find the facts yourselves rather than submitting your soul to a god, who might not actually exist.

Originally posted by Rabbit_hunter
To insert my own view here on evolution:
I think it makes Christians very comfortable to say "evolution is only a theory" to which I say don't let your belief blind you though. Find the facts yourselves rather than submitting your soul to a god, who might not actually exist.

if god created us, why arent we the center of the universe? if we were created in gods image, supposed to be better, smarter etc etc, why aren't we in the best spot. The center. We arent even in the center of our own solar system. Or our galaxy. we're on the outside. wouldn't it be logical to place the most important beings(aside from god) in the most acclaimed(does this word work here?) spot? Also, what's the point of insects? And why did he make more planets. one is enough.

the list goes on and on

(im not sure if others will see this as a valid point, but i think it is)

Originally posted by allofyousuckkk
if god created us, why arent we the center of the universe? if we were created in gods image, supposed to be better, smarter etc etc, why aren't we in the best spot. The center. We arent even in the center of our own solar system. Or our galaxy. we're on the outside. wouldn't it be logical to place the most important beings(aside from god) in the most acclaimed(does this word work here?) spot? Also, what's the point of insects? And why did he make more planets. one is enough.

the list goes on and on

(im not sure if others will see this as a valid point, but i think it is)

Why would God stop with one planet? The universe would not be as interesting to look at if there were not all of the objects present out there. Creation is not necessarily only a functional endeavor.

Originally posted by Regret
Everyone else would not do that. Such a thing is contrary to what we consider intelligence. Intelligence is learning though experience combined with capability. A.I. as it is today is based in the learning of skills, not in the initial creation of said skills. If we as humans have moved in this direction in attempts to create A.I., it is logical that the heavily structured "natural" behavioral bounds you suggest may impede the intelligence of the creation.

Originally posted by Regret
Are we born with sin?

Originally posted by Regret
Such is only the belief of a portion of Biblical religions. As to why we sin, we choose our behaviors, don't try to lessen our responsibility for our own actions.

Originally posted by Regret
I know what right and wrong are,

Originally posted by Regret
and I endeavor to avoid behaviors I believe to be wrong, and I believe others do similar. We were not poorly designed, we use our freedom, or more accurately agency, unwisely. The responsibility for our actions is ours, it is not some God's, nor is it some malicious "devil's", regardless of whether or not they exist.