spurly

Christ-on-a-stick, I will do my best to answer your question. In the beginning there was no such thing as disease. Bacteria and viruses were originally designed by God for good and they were good.

However, with sin and the fall of man, the whole creation fell. Some things that were good, became bad - viruses mutated and instead of being helpful started to be hurtful. Death entered the world. Now we are all subject to it because we have been cut off from complete communion with God, the source of all life.

Did God create the viruses to cause the pain and wreak the havoc that they do. Probably not. But in a fallen world, that's what happened.

If I did not answer your question good enough, please let me know. I will try again. I am really not trying to avoid answering you.

Kevin

southernhybrid

I believe in the purple dancing beaver, Hubert. I know he's not real but at least he's playful, fun and has never threatened to kill anyone, punish anyone or test anyone by making them suffer. He's my favorite god although I know he's not any more real than the other spiteful gods, but if I needed a god he'd be the one.

I believe that my dogs may be gods. They've protected me from harm many times, comforted me and always accepted me regardless of my imperfections. Unlike the Xian god they always give me their unconditional love. I adore them for that.

Finally, there are times when I think my husband is god. Last night was one of those times.

spurly

Sorry Starboy, I though I was answering your question. You asked what proof I had that a "god" existed.

I think the following proofs are overwhelming.

The existence of the universe and the life that is in it leads to the conclusion that someone or something created it. Things like this just don't magically appear out of thin air.

The fulfilled prophecies, the first prophecy occuring before Adam and Eve were escorted out of the garden is another very convincing proof.

The most convincing proof for me is the Resurrection of Christ.

What other proofs do you want?

Kevin

MyKell

None, it's not a question of a customized God that would appeal to me. It's the concept of [I]belief[I/]. I don't buy that altogether. The universe doesn't need a God to explain it

Starboy

No Spurly, I am sorry. I got you confused with Keith. You two sounded almost identical to one another.

The universe may be evidence, but evidence for what. When you use the term “intelligent design” you imply a great deal. So much so that without spelling it out there is no way to evaluate if the universe was “intelligently designed”. I will tell you this; I find the argument intellectually dishonest. It is an ambush, because you sucker punch your opponent by deceptively getting them to unknowingly accept a very large number of assumptions. If you want to have this discussion you will have to provide the following:

1) Who did the designing?
2) Where are they?
3) When did they do it?
4) How did they do it?
5) Why did they do it?

Your answers must be backed up with evidence that doesn’t come from the bible, since the bible is a similar sucker play. You must not only be able to explain everything that you think is relevant, but you must also be able to explain everything that exists but is not relevant. If you have extraordinary explanations you will have to supply extraordinary evidence.

Arguments from the bible are unconvincing. There are plenty of holy writings to go around. There is no reason to think that the bible is any more or less special than any of the others. But in any case, if it actually happened then the bible is unnecessary, it should be directly observable or in the natural record for all to see. If you understand what you are talking about you should be able to:

1) Describe the theory in your own words.
2) Explain some or the entire universe using that theory.
3) Your explanations must be able to make predictions about the universe that can be tested. The tests must be repeatable by independent third parties. They must be able to do it independently and entirely from what you have published.

Starboy

spurly

Starboy,

Just curious - why do the answers have to come from anywhere but one of the main places that God revealed himself to us. It's like saying - throw out the evidence, then prove to me that what you say is true. Why do you believe it must be done this way?

Kevin

Talulah

Methinks someone has been reading a little too much Bert Thompson, spurly.

I used to think his stuff made a lot of sense too, until I realized he was just as crafty in dodging *real* questions as any other apologist.

One major example, his 'answers' to quesions atheists ask, is ridiculous. Why can't he take some seriuos, meaty issues, instead of little quibbles over text. bah!

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/abdiscr/abdiscr.htm

Starboy

It is because claims from holy writings are not evidence; just as the contents of physics books is not evidence of photons, gravity, protons and so forth. Only actual observations and material objects are evidence. A book or personal account is hearsay, especially in regards to something as pervasive and profound as the universe. Add to this that there are a great deal of other holy writings out there that make different claims then the onus is on the provider of the writings to show that there is independent corroboration sufficient to support the extraordinary claims. Otherwise it is just historical fiction or even worse, religion.

Starboy

spurly

To be honest, I don't even know who Bert Thompson is.

Kevin

christ-on-a-stick

Hi Kevin, Thanks for replying to my post. Unfortunately I still find your explanation lacking. On one hand you say complex things must have a designer but here it seems that you are saying these things just "happened". Viruses, bacteria and diseases *as they work to kill people* (not some hypothetical previous form) are pretty complex things. Based on your "designer" theory, *somebody* would have had to set up exactly how they were going to work in their new "bad way". Thanks for the offer but that's ok. I believe that what you wrote *is* the best that you can do - and I don't mean that in a condescending or unkind way, it just seems clear to me that you can't explain it any better because there IS no better explanation that wouldn't require you to admit that Yahweh is indeed "the author of evil" (or would be if he existed )