Can you clarify your statement. You mentioned O'Grady ( ? ) who explained what had been misunderstood about creation. I asked how she knew, why you appear to believe her and what evidence supported her claim. Can you give a straightforward answer or not ?
Who claims to know what the body is good for and if it is wholy good with what is it being compared ?[/QUOTE]
ok so here's the post
Or maybe there is an issue about why the material world is designed the way it is that you are not addressing
The rational argument of design started off with a serious handicap that left it open to Hume's attack.
4) Though the different parts of the great machine of nature work together systematically, these parts (for instance, rainfall) are sometimes deficient, sometimes excessive. Thus it seems nature works without higher supervision. Why, if God is infallible?
The handicap was incomplete knowledge of the purpose of creation. In her book Heresy, Joan O'Grady writes that this problem arose from a tenet ...
... developed from the Old Testament, that God, the Creator, made a world that is good. And God saw everything that He had made and, behold, it was very good. (Gen 1.31) From that it follows that our bodies are good.
If the world and our bodies are good, what are they good for?
well?
suggestions?
You mean to suggest you can't uncover a few general principles that Hume is drawing upon about the nature of creation to undermine the notion of god's infallibility?
Who claims to know what the body is good for
anyone who lodges an argument similar to Hume for a start
that we can discuss once we uncover something of hume's general principlesand if it is wholy good with what is it being compared ?