Vanderzyden

Your argument fails to be persuasive at its first premise:

Have you considered the likelihood that God didn't create us with faults?

Man creates his own trouble. Again, it is a matter of choice.

Vanderzyden

Vanderzyden

Yet another example of pettiness.

I wonder, is your preparation for your unavoidable demise based upon such tawdry rags?

Vanderzyden

xeren

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE read up on observation selection effects and anthropic principles before you make any more dumb remarks like these.

Please!

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: xeren ]</p>

WWSD

Why does radon exist? Why do we have C. botulinum to spice up our food?

Color vision was selected for.
Why can't we see UV like bees?

Why are there gamma rays? Why are there alpha and beta particles? Why are there cosmic rays?

Why are there large asteroids crossing earth's orbit?

Flowers have intricate shapes, colors, and fragrences to attract insencts for various reasons.
Why are some of them toxic to humans?
Why are some of the compounds that form naturally so toxic to humans?

Mageth

Vanderzyden:

Sorry if I seemed "petty". No, really, I am. It's just that the "antrhopic principle" argument is so full of holes to border on being ridiculous. My main objections:

1. We are here, alive on this planet. Of course it seems that things are "just right" for us. This is where we evolved. It's probable that a wide variety of planets, positions in the galaxy, etc. could support life of some sort, even some intelligent life forms quite alien to us. If we were intelligent beings on another planet, you might be arguing "Why is the atmosphere 30% sulfur, which is exactly what we need to survive?" or "Why is our world at a perfect orbit, 160 million miles from our Sun"? Or even "why are we near the center of the galaxy, where we can relish in all this energy-providing radiation, rather than in the cold edges like that distant star Sol?"

2. By posing an omnipotent Creator as a necessity to get things "just right", you demolish the antrhopic principle. An omnipotent creator would, of course, get anything "just right." There's absolutely no reason why our particular conditions should be the way they are if they were created by an omnipotent creator. Hell, could not an omnipotent god have just as well animated us as sulfur-eating intelligent jellyfishlike creatures in the atmosphere of Jupiter? Or as N-dimensional creatures in an N-dimensional universe? An omnipotent god could animate 2-dimensional cartoon characters in the funny papers if he so desired, couldn't he?

Cthulhu

Do all Xians suffer from BRS(Broken Record Syndrome), or just Vanderzyden?

Mageth

Tell me, Mageth, why does gold exist at all?Why do we have spices to make our food more interesting? Why do we see in color? Why are there colors to see? Why do some things, such as flowers, have especially intricate and unique shapes?

Why, in all these cases, in the sense you mean anyway, is a totally pointless question. Again, you confuse function with purpose.

luvluv

K:

K this is where I, and probably many other theists, fall off the wagon. I do disbelieve in things like psychics and astrology. I think them to be absolutely silly. I therefore cannot imagine spending HOURS of time debating their existence with people who believe in them. It seems to me the absolute height of absurdity.

To give you an example, I live in the south. Down here there is a lot of belief in various forms of folk voodoo (roots, etc). I currently have various members of my family (and some fellow church-members!) who are firm believers in the existence of roots and the ability of one person to put a curse of some sort on another person. I obviously consider this to be ridiculous. The point is this: I would never in a million lifetimes consider giving one hour of my time to serious debate on the efficacy of root-working. It is so obviously absurd that I would heartily balk at the notion of having a serious conversation regarding it. If I came across it, I would not participate in it. If asked, I would say I disbelieved in it. But to give it any more attention or serious effort on my part would be an absurd, a totally absurd waste of my time. That's the way people behave towards propositions they truly and sincerely believe to be utterly false.

A lot of you equate believing in God with believing in Santa Claus. Well, I hope you don't honestly believe that, because that implies you would be more than willing to spend upwards of 10 hours a week debating the existence of Santa Claus on a public thread. If the case against God was really as clear and unambigious as you folks make it out to be, you wouldn't be here. You'd have to have deep psychological issues or a terrible social life to persist in debating what to you is a ridiculously obvious question.

I think, if we are honest, that the reason we are all here is that the question is far from clear cut. If we are honest with ourselves, we would admit there are darn good reasons BOTH for belief AND disbelief, and that we are here to settle these questions. If this is not the case for anyone here, then you shouldn't be here. I have more respect for Koya now than I did when he was here, because I've always thought that if he really believed theism was as absurd as he claimed, he would not spend HOURS refuting it. On a certain level, this whole website falls into the category of "methinks thou dost protest too much."

K I certainly don't mean you any disrespect in any of this.

RJS

luvluv, I think I love you.


Sorry, its joke from earlier in the thread. But you "verbalize" very well something that has been pestering me.

Autonemesis

Whoah there fella! Back the truck up!

The proper question to start with is "Does the self somehow continue after death?" If it does not, then it really doesn't matter a hill of neutrinos if any God exists or not, or what His plans for us in the afterlife might be.