Or perhaps he could create beings intelligent enough to make mosquito nets and invent antimalarial drugs and use them in a morally admirable way. But why would God, a perfectly rational creator, create things whose nature then had to be frequently interfered with or suspended by Him anyway?

Thank you for this beautiful example of twisted logic that theists have to engage in to justify their childish fantasies. Malaria was created so intelligent beings could waste their time trying to find ways to battle it, in the mean time millions of innocent children succumbing to the "test". Your God is one sick puppy. And then you claim that there's actually no need for the perfect creator to interfere because, um, he wouldn't have created his creatures in the first place if there were a need to interfere later on. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound to someone who hasn't been brainwashed for decades?

Your argument, in condensed form:

1. Reality contains a lot of apparently needless suffering.

2. We cannot prove that if there was a creator, he could have done better.

3. Therefore, we must assume that he could not have done better.

If you don't see the logical flaw here, just ask, and I'll be happy to spell it out for you.

Fifth monarchy man, that quote did not come from me.

oops it was Stunney. First I confused you with Frostman now this. Sorry I seem to be having a brain block when it comes to you. Is it possible to have a selective stroke?

Peace

If I Was The Designer I Wouldn't Have Done It That Way

Ironically this line of reasoning from atheists is for me some of the most profound evidence of the truth of Christianity and the Genesis account. It is exactly the argument that the serpent made to Eve and rebels are still buying it hook line and sinker even today.

On the other hand IMHO non monotheistic religions (Hinduism for example) have a hard time accounting for the level of dissatisfaction that unregenerate rebels have for the created order. And as far as I can tell Atheism has no explanation at all for this phenomenon.

Peace

How panglossian.

Not at all, as I've pointed out before.

Are you now a deist?

Not at all. I've explained my views about deism before too.

Couldn't God at any time intervene to disarm the nasty bugs?

Or perhaps he could create beings intelligent enough to make mosquito nets and invent antimalarial drugs and use them in a morally admirable way. But why would God, a perfectly rational creator, create things whose nature then had to be frequently interfered with or suspended by Him anyway?

I have freely admitted that I don't know what the logical space of possibilities is when it comes to designing a biological order. I said the following:

Just how many ways are there to design, create, and sustain a large variety of complex living physical things anyway? Salimfahdley, do you know? Anybody?

I don't know if there's even one logically and physically possible alternative way to have created and ordered a large variety of complex life-forms that would have been a) available to even an omniscient and omnipotent designer, and b) preferable, all things considered. For one thing, I simply do not know what is, and what isn't, logically (or metaphysically) possible when it comes to sentient life and hence, I don't know the logical space of possibilities a designer would face when it comes to creating physical entities with a capacity for having complex mental states generally. You know, Ye Olde Mind-Body Difficultie, and all that jazz.

Come to think of it, I wouldn't know how to design a quark or a photon, never mind a complex life-form.

As mentioned, given that it happened a certain way, I don't know if that was the only way, or at minimum a rationally intelligible way, that an intelligent designer could have chosen. So I'm not one of those who think, If I Was The Intelligent Designer, I Wouldn't Have Done It That Way, where 'that way' means using evolutionary algorithms. As I say, I'd have had a hard time designing a quark or a photon from scratch, never mind complex life-forms.

And in this thread I asked this question:

If you were the designer and if you wouldn't have chosen the actual set of laws/constants/initial conditions because that set causes malaria, which alternative set would you recommend?

Which I notice you've chosen not to answer. Yet again.

I have to admit, it's quite amusing to me (is that sinful?) to see the theists' twisting and turning to rescue their sadly misguided views.

I don't have to admit it, but it is amusing to me that it is amusing to you that theists reject pisspoor arguments like the Argument From The Fact That If I Was The Designer I Wouldn't Have Done It That Way Even Though I Have, Er, No Idea How I Would Have Done It, And Also Have, Um, Well, Actually No Idea If A Better Design Of Physical Life Is Even Possible. But this is old ground.

So it's not twisting and turning. (That's just your imagination—one of the twistiest and turniest I've ever encountered.) No, Raevmo, it's simply theists noticing that it's, well, a lousy argument; and then noticing how easily self-styled champions of reason are impressed by lousy arguments.

Oh, and the misguided views are yours. Though what it is for a materialist to 'have misguided views' is very hard to say if materialism is true. So allow us theists to think about evil while you get on with working on your explanation of how certain purely material objects can 'have misguided views', or indeed any views at all.:smile:

There's a good chap.

I have to admit, it's quite amusing to me (is that sinful?) to see the theists' twisting and turning to rescue their sadly misguided views.

I don't care what metaphysical position someone takes, they have very difficult issues to deal with. Theists have the problem of evil and divine action but atheists also have their problems and contrivances. What about the multiverse theory to counter fine tuning? Or the manyworld theory to account for the orign of life? Then there are the long standing problems of no free will, moral relativism, explaining phenomenal consciousness, the problem of meaning, etc. From either position no solutions to the issues are fully satisfying.

However, for me, it is not problematic that God has not created a utopia within which his creations could dwell. That requirement seems to flow from a childish comprehension of the nature of human beings and our universe

For my part, I stand by my original statement: A God who only created perfection is a God who would not create me. Or, likely, anyone I know.

It doesn't strike me as very benevolent either. I rather like the idea of a God that allows and loves - and through time, infinitely improves - imperfect creation, and imperfect people. The "benevolent God that could be" that some are describing here would be anything but either, only allowing the most perfect specimens to come into being and dooming the rest to non-existence.

As for stunney's examples.. I do find it heartening and "convenient" that the classic theistic staples, from charity to prayer to temperance to modesty - turn out to be so damn favorable to health and well-being. A modest point, but it's still one I enjoy.

Couldn't God at any time intervene to disarm the nasty bugs? I have to admit, it's quite amusing to me (is that sinful?) to see the theists' twisting and turning to rescue their sadly misguided views.

I agree, at least in part, with Raevmo. I have not read all the comments so I'll not endorse the "twisting and turning" description. However, for me, it is not problematic that God has not created a utopia within which his creations could dwell. That requirement seems to flow from a childish comprehension of the nature of human beings and our universe. So why not dismiss utopian objections rather than afford them unmerited attention?

If you were the designer and if you wouldn't have chosen the actual set of laws/constants/initial conditions because that set causes malaria, which alternative set would you recommend?

How panglossian. Are you now a deist? Couldn't God at any time intervene to disarm the nasty bugs? I have to admit, it's quite amusing to me (is that sinful?) to see the theists' twisting and turning to rescue their sadly misguided views.