A funny guy.
The second question, I didn't bother with. I don't have an answer and it's a response to Wynn drooling on the thread.
Reasons not to believe in God
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
The second question, I didn't bother with. I don't have an answer and it's a response to Wynn drooling on the thread.
Not really. Just more complex. It's based on a false premise. It doesn't matter whether no deformities would make the world better or worse. In the end, someday we may have the means to prevent them and we will find out. It's still irrelevant. The point was it showed a lack of intelligence in creation.
How so?
jan.
jan.
Evolution. The genetic processes that lead to these mutations and 'deformities' are based on random mutations. Intelligence would not be random and requiring millions of years (And billions of agonizing deaths) to lead to genetic changes/adaptation/better survival rates.
Granted, however, that if you suggest that's how the Great Creator Works, he must be pretty sadistic...
So in your view an ''intelligent'' creation would consist of ''perfection''?
What is your idea of ''perfection''?
jan.
See post 143. No, not perfection- just intelligence.
Pretty much the same thing. Defects are mutations. Some defects are quite subtle. Others extreme.
Consider being born with no eyes. That seems like a serious birth defect.
But if you're in a colony of salamanders that has been trapped in a cave several generations, that defect is now an advantage where bumbling around won't so easily lead to a deadly infection when you gouge an eye on something.
No, I know, but I wasn't giving it that much thought.
Neverfly,
Isn't ''random mutations'' another way of saying ''I don't understand the pattern''?
Intelligence is an expression of consciousness. Do you know what consciousness is?
That's what you want to think.
jan.
Isn't ''random mutations'' another way of saying ''I don't understand the pattern''?
Intelligence is an expression of consciousness. Do you know what consciousness is?
That's what you want to think.
jan.
No. Clearly, you don't have a strong grasp of statistical mathematics. And it begs the question of what an intelligent creator would be using that kind of "pattern" for- see below.
What does this have to do with millions of years and billions of agonizing deaths?
No, I do not believe in that creator, remember? It's an offhand reminder to you, to examine what you may try to endorse:That's what you want to think.
A creator that intelligently causes billions of agonizing deaths instead of altering one gene with his noodly appendage to be creature-survival the first time.
1. Maybe not, but it doesn't mean my suggestion is in vain.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27910/title/Are-mutations-truly-random-/
2. For a start, time would be relative. Maybe the reality is that millions of years time span is less than a moment in reality, only appearing this long to the conditioned mind.
3. What do you mean by ''I do not believe in that creator''?
4. Is this a reason?
jan.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Complex? Not at all. All God has to do is make himself known as a physical being. He's God. He could figure out a way to do it. Just let all humans know he exists for starters. Then, once he's with us and working with us, how bout some solutions? Cure to cancer? Guaranteed protection of all babies and children until 18? Worldwide consensus on religion leading to peace and cooperation. The benefits of this scenario are obvious. Why couldn't he do it?
Valid enough- but the word random has more than one connotation.
That's quite a stretch, just to hang onto a belief you hold that lacks evidence...
I refer by "that God" to any creator God. There's more than one kind of God. And before you ask, I do not believe in any Gods.
A valid enough one. It's one reason why the creation God myth is quite absurd.
We are all peers. We (all contributing members) don't always see eye to eye nor agree, we do occasionally, we fight often, we get emotional and we get rational and we get out of hand. Sometimes we do agree and occasionally, someone sees merit in the oppositions arguments and changes their position.
But we aren't here for fellowship. We are here to hash out opinions and ideas. To learn and grow. To challenge others and even ourselves.
Unless you're above anyone on here, greater in some way, we are all peers.
I said you were a tease because you come in with a provocative issue, and then when things get hot, you bow out.
But sure, tease away, whatever. Maybe your "peers" will have a lesson to teach you or something!
Nonsense.
It's quite clear what several of you here think of me, and you certainly don't view me as a peer.
Considering me a peer would make your crown fall off! And we can't have that, can we.