patman

John, I am not good at giving short answers to these matters.

You seem to understand what I present.

I have presented several reasons as to why things are as they are today.

I was once heavily dependent on freewill alone to answer those questions. But as I begin to think, I believe that freewill is only one of the many reasons bad things, like malaria exist and aren't eliminated.

I like your approach in understanding my message, taking it one point at a time. I think there are many aspects and reasons, lets take them one at a time as well.

I think each point is rather deep in their own right, I hope we don't have to completely go over each one. I think each one is understandable and will keep to and point to the Good God we have as a creator.

For the sake of argument, from now on allow me to use "malaria" and "any disease" interchangeably.

I presented my theory about how malaria was not intended to harm humans. It has mutated, and we have changed that it is not an issue we face.

Assuming I am correct, allow me to give light to a concept.

Human's have progressed much in the past 500 years. So far that we are able to go into space. In the next 100 years, space travel will evolve even further. In 200 years, we may have colonies on the moon. The future is wide open, much could happen. But human's were created for earth. The gravitational effects of being in space or on the moon for prolonged visits have negative effects on our muscles and bones.

And beyond that, a human unprotected by a space suit in the 0 pressurized vacuum of space is deadly. In the next few centuries, humans will have much danger that face them in space travel and in "moon-camping".

Assuming this happens in 200 years, will the humans of the future ask God "why did you create a vacuum in space?" Like we ask today "why did you create malaria?"

At the time of creation, the moon's function was not for sustaining life, and because we freely choose to go there and begin to live there does that mean we can blame God for the deaths that might occur in space?

Would the people of the future then question the Christians of the future and say "If your God is so powerful, why doesn't he eliminate the vacuum of space that no one else might die?"

Is altering creation at every whim that we humans perceive as a negative event the answer the problems of the world and death? Is making the world out of nerf the solution? (Keep in mind, death is not final, it is a step to the next stage of life. That stage is determined by what we choose in life, if we choose God's kingdom, we must be sinless through Christ which is achieved today simply by faith.)

John A. Broussard

Sorry, but I see no connection whatever between free will and malaria.

Malaria seems to have evolved with man, as have many other diseases. These diseases such as leprosy, smallpox, plague, etc. do not merely cause death. They cause incredible agony for billions, including children who have not reached the age of exercising free will--if there is such a thing.

It strikes me that your god could have prevented such horrendous diseases (and floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.) without interfering with human being's free will and without causing more serious problems by doing so.

Now, my question is, why doesn't your all-loving, benign god spare human beings (including those helpless and blameless children) all this incredible suffering and misery.

If you wish to say, "I don't know," that's fine. It merely means that you have abandoned rationality for blind belief--something I can't argue with.

Looking forward to your answer.

patman

John, my last post did not answer the question with "freewill" as the reason.

I actually said "I was once heavily dependent on freewill alone to answer those questions. But as I begin to think, I believe that freewill is only one of the many reasons bad things, like malaria exist and aren't eliminated."

I believe this to be a deep issue, and I wanted to start with fundamental ideas.

I will resubmit the idea I wanted to convey and get your reaction to it before I go any deeper. I do not think I will be able to answer this in just one post, this should take several posts to complete.

I could also add that in the future, many children may suffer and die due to accidental mechanical errors in space travel and camping, and then ask the same questions again.

I too look forward to your reaction.
-Pat

John A. Broussard

My reaction is one of deep puzzlement. I see absolutely no connection between hypothetical space travel of the future and the real cruelties inflicted by your god upon human kind over the millenia.

Perhaps you can make the connection for me.

Thank you for your patience.

patman

I apologize for the confusion.

Today, atheist point to bad happenings to the human race as evidence that God does not exist because he should be "powerful" enough to make it different. Because things aren't being made different(I.E. "better"), God does not exist, according to their logic.

And today, December 12 of 2005, many agnostic/athiest claim the same of disease. As you point out, "why doesn't God prevent malaria."

I point out that Malaria wasn't designed to harm humans, but after changes in both us and it it does harm us now. You ask, why doesn't God change that?

I use my "sci-fi" example to show you a concept. I also ask you to keep in mind that for arguments sake, malaria could represent any "disease," which I hoped would be obvious as being "death in space is a representative of the disease."

What if, in the future, humans are exposed to the dangers of space much more frequently than today and death in space became common. Space, like malaria, was not designed to harm humans. But due to malfunctions or what have you, these future humans may die as a result of yet another "creation of God."

Do you suppose the atheist of the future will ask the same of of Christians regarding space as they do today of malaria. Space, being dangerous and harmful to humans, to them would be used as proof, just like malaria, that God can't exist because God doesn't make space "safe."

Does that clear it up any?
-Pat

John A. Broussard

You must be talking about some other atheists then the ones I've seen post here. Their argument is simply that you have to make a choice among three concepts--an all-powerful god, and omnibenevolent god, and the evil that besets mankind.

What you have done above is to erect a straw man and then you destroyed it. Someone may argue that god does not exist, according to logic. I don't. So let's move on.

Now, as I have to again remind you, malaria and human beings grew up together. Malaria feeds off of human beings just like other parasites and predators.

Is that clear? Whether god intended malaria to cause all that suffering is besides the point. It did, it does and it will.

If you can't understand that, then please tell me and I'll try and explain it some more so we can move on with our discussion without going off into space again.

I look forward to your answer.

EnterTheBowser

And why, exactly, would that be a stupid question? Furthermore, there's a difference between those things that people suffer because they actively accept the risks (eg camping on the moon) and those forced upon them by the vicissitudes of birth (eg malaria).

John A. Broussard

Somehow, patman doesn't understand that simple truth.

patman

Just talk amongst yourself and accuse me of being ignorant before I have a chance to present my points.

John and ETB, you accuse me of being unable to distinguish the difference between "accepting risks" and unintentionally having risks forced on us.

And John, you accuse me of creating a strawman!

I must have lost you both a loooong time ago, because my "sci-fi" scenario fits perfectly.

I presented man as being created perfectly, immune to disease. Man chose a path that required God stop blessing him. He was plainly told "you will die" if you take that path. Then I show how man starts taking the things God created and using them in ways God didn't intend for them to be used.

The question is why not stop disease, or just malaria? Just one thing?

I answer with something that should make it pretty clear why God shouldn't just go and change things because humans suffer from it.

We clearly know today that man was not made for space. Just like 5000 years ago man had no idea what malaria was.

In the future, man will attempt to settle in space. Just like 5000 years ago man "looked forward"(for lack of a better way of putting it) to disease. AND the first man knew he would die if he chose the path he went down just like future people will know there is a risk of death.

Today, ETB and John ask me why doesn't God stop malaria. Will the future ETBs and Johns ask a simular question of future Pats, "Why doesn't God stop the dangers of space, like radiation, like the vacuum, like the lack of air, or the lack of heat?" Will they say "let's just pick one, why doesn't God stop radiation?"

I hoped you would see the implications. God can't just change something because it is dangerous, no matter who it is dangerous to. The idea of "God stopping radiation in space" should sound 'out there' today, but in the future, if space travel happens so much that people are up there all the time, I think it will be asked.

Had we lived 5000 years ago, you wouldn't be asking me about malaria, you would be asking me about hunger. You'd probibaly ask "why doesn't God stop food from rotting?"

It is like you guys are just throwing a dart at a wall of problems that we have on earth and expect God to just snap his fingers to fix it, no matter what it means to the rest of creation, and expect it to magically work out.

That's what I hoped you'd realize if you thought about it. I also hoped you'd see how God could create a perfect world and how we could screw it up by taking the things God meant for good and finding ways to make them evil.

John A. Broussard

My bad.

I didn't realize that you believed in the Adam and Eve myth. That puts an entirely different complexion on the matter. We obviously have been talking past each other.

You insist that the world was created a few thousands of years ago and that human beings, by their choice, decided to plunge themselves into the morass of infectious diseases and natural disasters.

That puts an entirely different light on our discussion.

So, let's start over. What empirical evidence (that's the kind of stuff we depend on to decide what causes a specific disease, for example) do you have to indicate that human beings have been around only since 4004 B.C.

We can move on from there.