God is almost omnipotent. He has many limits

First topic message reminder :

God is almost omnipotent. He has many limits.

Omnipotent is defined in part as having power or authority without limits IOW, almighty.

Seems to me that God has a few limits.

He cannot reproduce true.
He cannot enjoy sex.
He cannot reproduce without bestiality or cross species breeding.
He can only reproduce half breed chimeras like Jesus.
He could not create a heaven without Satan.
He could not create Eden without evil in it.
He cannot control wayward demons or devils.
He cannot sin, although scripture says he does.
He cannot live without needs like adoration, honour, obedience, love.
He cannot accept a soul into heaven without us accepting Jesus and human sacrifice.
He could not forgive sin without having Jesus sacrificed.
Feel free to add to this list.

How then can Christians say that God omnipotent, all-powerful and without limits when he clearly has many?

Regards
DL

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

TMG wrote:A good deal of Frances electricity grid

They won't like that on the apostrophe thread.

Lazy  Tiger sorry.

The cloud bubble icon immediately to right of centre in the top row of editing symbols is the quote function. It is tricky to get to grips with at first, I still get it wrong sometimes, especially when I use my phone to post.

I think I am beginning to get the hang of it all thanks, I am just used to a more spartan layout.

TMG wrote:Throughout history many bad things have been done by people who were *certain* of their religious beliefs...there is no greater justification than *God* some of those people used science to facilitate their actions. So its not science and its not religion, its how they might be used by individuals or groups of people...I hope this makes sense it did in my head anyway

Of course the morality of the outcome comes down to choice. However is there anything in science that offers motives? I mean as opposed to religious texts that are purportedly the immutable commands of an infallible deity of course. Now I'm not suggesting all theists adhere literally to those texts, I know they don't, but as you say when someone claims absolute certainty it's seldom a good sign. How can such a person ever correct a mistake or an error, or perhaps they don't think it's possible to be wrong as long as they believe it with faith?

I'm not sure how you debate such claims as they clearly can't be evidenced in any empirical sense, though he is adamant that everything we see confirms this elaborate rationalisation he's constructed. As  I'm not bright enough, I can't envisage a method of falsifying such claims beyond indicating the lack of any compelling empirical evidence, if only Tony could lend his philosophical knowledge perhaps he might supply some insights? He might welcome a break from what the Amazon forum has become, it's very disheartening to remember what it was and see what it has turned into, c'est la vie.

I think the best way is to see how he might view the smaller details all of which make up the bigger picture.

You're right of course, but I have no expertise in evolution and only have the basics, though I have tried to explain the basics of the scientific process and how it works, and how this process has never been satisfied by creationist claims even once, and how supernatural claims are rejected as unscientific anyway as they cannot be falsified.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:You're right of course, but I have no expertise in evolution and only have the basics, though I have tried to explain the basics of the scientific process and how it works, and how this process has never been satisfied by creationist claims even once, and how supernatural claims are rejected as unscientific anyway as they cannot be falsified.

If he is indeed a YEC perhaps a good place to start would be trying to understand how he might only consider the world to be x number of years old when there are several different scientific processes that prove otherwise...unless he of course rejects science...but then he would have to reject all science...this to me is the contradiction and logically I think its a watertight one.

I will await his reply with interest

TMG wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:You're right of course, but I have no expertise in evolution and only have the basics, though I have tried to explain the basics of the scientific process and how it works, and how this process has never been satisfied by creationist claims even once, and how supernatural claims are rejected as unscientific anyway as they cannot be falsified.

If he is indeed a YEC perhaps a good place to start would be trying to understand how he might only consider the world to be x number of years old when there are several different scientific processes that prove otherwise...unless he of course rejects science...but then he would have to reject all science...this to me is the contradiction and logically I think its a watertight one.

I will await his reply with interest

Ah I tried this more than once, pointing out that YEC ism was denying evidence from chemistry, physics, biology, geology, and cosmology. To be honest he never even acknowledged the point, just rolled past it repeating his claims. Good luck....

TMG,
I cannot understand how you feel that to reject one aspect means you reject all aspects of a matter, this does not make sense.

You can believe in part or the whole in any matter.

Of course science has it's good and bad points and I have never said anything other.

With regard to weapons of distruction etc; these were made for one purpose only, to inflict injury and death, just as all the chemical and biological weapons were.

So I accept that to use science to cure and develope technology is of benifit and accept the part science has played I also feel that science has also been a source of destruction by means obtained through science for that purpose.

I see no contradiction whatsoever in the above.

Not really as science doesn't require belief in the way you're implying. TMG's point is that the only criteria you have for rejecting one or two scientific facts is your own subjective beliefs. Whereas the facts you're rejecting have been through exactly the same rigorous process as the one's you accept.

What is more creationism, which is the alternative you believe over the scientific fact of evolution, has never managed to get a single piece of evidence through the same rigorous scientific process.

It's hard to understand why after this has been pointed out so many times you won't even acknowledge it. Now I can only speculate of course, but it seems to me you either don't want to address it because you know what this implies, or you think it's reasonable to ignore these facts. Scientific opinion  (not the opinion of scientists ) is overwhelmingly in support of evolution. Denying it is like denying any other scientific theory like gravity or relativity.

Polyglide wrote: So I accept that to use science to cure and develope technology is of benifit and accept the part science has played I also feel that science has also been a source of destruction by means obtained through science for that purpose.

I see no contradiction whatsoever in the above.

I'm afraid this misses the point again.

Science's only motive is the pursuit of knowledge.

What you are describing is the way humans use that knowledge when it's attained. I can't really see how you can keep ignoring this distinction and repeating your claim but not offer any explanation?

Dr, Sheldon,
I feel my point is obvious and very clearly put.

Science has produced both good and bad and in my view the bad far outways the good.

We now have the means to blow up the world, what good is all the other scientific knowledge if this is ever used?

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                I feel my point is obvious and very clearly put.

                Science has produced both good and bad and in my view the bad far outways the good.

                We now have the means to blow up the world, what good is all the other scientific knowledge if this is ever used?

All you've done is repeat the same claim, and ignored both my and TMG's point.

What your describing is down to how humans have used scientific knowledge. Nothing about science requires the knowledge be used this way. It's a simple enough premise, if you disagree then have the courtesy to acknowledge the point and offer a refutation based on some evidence. Instead of ignoring my posts and endlessly repeating your claim.

Try showing some motive by science for the things you're blaming it for? A scientific text of any kind that advocates those things are desirable.

Dr, Sheldon,
Of course I say how scientific knowledge is used, what is the point if you do not consider the consequence.


It is a silly notion in my opinion to do something and never evaluate the consequences.

You say how illnesses have been cured, strange when you do not want to consider all the evil that has resulted from science.

all the evil that has resulted from science.

I might rather want to say - all the evil that has resulted from the misuse of science - which in its way is similar in quantity and kind to all the evil that has resulted from the abuse of religious belief

boatlady wrote:all the evil that has resulted from science.

I might rather want to say - all the evil that has resulted from the misuse of science - which in its way is similar in quantity and kind to all the evil that has resulted from the abuse of religious belief

i knew that was coming. It's seems a fair point prima facie, but where it falls down IMHO is that religious text that the faithful claim are from their perfect deity advocate those things, indeed if the scriptures and texts in the Koran and the bible are really the immutable word of God, then one might legitimately ask why theists are not more often driven to do what those passages invoke the faithful to do, though that is perhaps a Pandora's box best kept tightly shut.

By comparison I am not aware of any reason why science need be used for morally questionable acts. To be clear we're talking about science itself, not scientists, who are of course just as culpable as the rest of us for their actions. Oppenheimer's moral angst at what he has helped create, and his efforts to persuade Truman not to use the bombs show at least that he regretted his actions in how he had used the knowledge science had yielded, but blaming science for the bomb instead of Oppenheimer, is as I said like blaming a rock for murder when someone uses it to kill someone.

The fact is knowledge can be used for any purpose, both good and bad, do we really think then it is better to live in ignorance? If not then I'm not sure what point Polyglide's derogations of science are making? Some of them are far too general and look remarkably biased anyway, as in his "most/majority of/many illnesses are caused" argument which so far hasn't yielded much in the way of evidence.

I suppose a useful benchmark might to be to ask if there is widespread disagreement on whether the things he has cited are good or bad? Only the most rabid militarists would be likely to describe the use of nuclear physics to make bombs as a good use of such knowledge, let alone the best.

An omnipotent deity of course need not be weighed down by such moral angst, as it could if it possessed any benevolence avoid such pitfalls by sheer will alone, not is it logical to assume that such actions would be negated by other limitations such as human free will, as no limitations can logically be placed on the actions of a being that possesses limitless power, and none can morally be placed in the way of a benevolent being stopping suffering.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote: god appears to be more impotent than omnipotent ....  [and] benevolent

Impotence - lack of power to act effectively

Omnipotence - a quality of having unlimited power

Choice - the power, right, or liberty to choose between multiple options

That God chooses not to use his unlimited power in no way negates its existence.  Just as I have the power to turn on every light in my house but choose not to do so - choosing not to use power is not the same as lacking it.

God in his infinite wisdom, having already tried first to shelter his creation from corruption then later to rid the world of its ill gotten sons, gave man freedom of choice. HE might by now have learnt by his mistake and, perhaps, wish to withdraw his gift.  However, having given, would it make him more powerful to take that freedom away or does it show a greater level of control that HE keep word and abide by that earlier decision?  After all, is this not a choice faced by any and every parent watching their offspring grow to adulthood - to give that child room to grow or keep it safely locked in a darkened room?

Benevolent - well meaning

Where in the Bible does it claim God to be benevolent?  There is plenty in there about his demanding that man walk the straight and narrow; that man himself be benevolent.  Of himself it has more to say about fear:  Ecclesiastes: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man; or Deuteronomy: What doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways etc.  After all, right back at the beginning when Adam and Eve fell from grace, HE starts the whole ball rolling by serving an eviction notice; HE goes on to rain down plague, flood, famine and destruction upon the peoples of the earth.  The Bible is awash with tales of havoc and destruction - Vengeance is mine, I will repay, sayeth the Lord.  Plenty of meaning, not much well.

Even at the end there was no saving, in this life, of 'his' earthbound redeemer of men.

Though there were times, such as when HE cast Adam & Eve from the garden, that HE did indeed show benevolence Genesis: Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Just to get the ball rolling, why didn't the Bible contain a detailed explanation of this cure?

Oh Sheldon, I'm not quite sure if you know this but the Bible is a guide written for and to those wishing to undertake a Christian way of life.  It contains much that is practical, moral and just but says little about making life easy.  Quite the opposite in fact; it identifies the Christian road as one that is forever rocky and laced with thorns.  Having said that, although it is 'the Word', there is no evidence to suggest that it was every word that God ever spoke.

In an age wherein most of the disease you speak was unknown what use would man find to record its nature?  After all it was only as recently as last century that man discovered that tissue cells were anything more than a blob of protoplasm.  Indeed it was argued that many parts of the body served no function whatsoever.  More recently, after its initial discovery, much of DNA was labelled “junk” because it does not code for proteins so was assumed to serve no function.   And let's not forget that, in all likelihood, there is always the possibility that some of the original was lost after the debacle over the tower of Babel if nothing else.

It is not and was never meant to be an apothecary.  Even so God does give direction for a healthy lifestyle in a number of places, and not least for the diet HE suggested to Adam & Eve as necessary to maintain it.  Does man follow the guidelines given?  Don't answer that, it was rhetorical.  No man does not follow God's guidelines, and hasn't (in the western world) since before the industrial revolution.

Genesis: And God said, Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

When was the last time you lived on a diet of fruit & seeds?

As to actual cures, I have more to say on that subject later (maybe much later but I will get around to it)

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote: prayer had no discernible effect

The power of prayer - So, long story short, every Friday night Paddy pops into church and, on his knees, begs 'Please God let me win the lottery'.  Week after week, month after month, this plea goes out, each time ever more desperate. Til one week, as Paddy begins his litany, a voice interjects and says 'Paddy, I am trying my level best here but at least give me a fighting chance.  Buy a lottery ticket!'

Prayer is a means through which to enlist God's help and can prove very powerful for those who believe.  But just as man cannot live by bread alone, neither can he hope always to heal serious illness by prayer alone.  Prayer is just one part of a regimen that lives up to the standards set out in the Bible.

Whilst the report you intimate did not show a positive outcome, research into the power of prayer as a means of healing is yet in its infancy and there are other studies that do indicate greater success.  There is also much anecdotal evidence indicating positive outcome through prayer - though, as with every other medical intervention available, it does not work for everybody.
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/08/prayer-heal-sick.html
http://www.christianpost.com/news/i-believed-god-would-heal-me-and-he-did-says-man-cured-of-inoperable-cancer-video-103568/

Harvard scientist Herbert Benson, MD, has documented the physical changes that take place in the body when someone meditates using MRI scans.   Prayer, of course, can be used as a genuine form of meditation.

Statistics indicate:

• Hospitalized people who never attended church have an average stay of three times longer than people who attended regularly.
  
• Heart patients who participate in a religion were were less likely to suffer serious complications following surgery.
  
• Elderly people who attended church regularly had a stroke rate much lower that of people who never or rarely attended.
  
• In Israel, religious people had a 40% lower death rate from cardiovascular disease and cancer.
  

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:god thought out and then designed & created all these diseases why would it want to cure them?

Isaiah: he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty; Genesis: God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. (served up the wrong way round but they make better sense that way)

So if everything in God's creation was good and with purpose, why would disease-causing bacteria and viruses exist in the world?

For the majority of us mere mortals we first learn about bacteria and viruses when they cause problems. However bacteria have been studied in considerable detail and are now recognized to be mainly helpful and absolutely essential for life on Earth.  Bacteria that cause disease (which developed as a result of the Fall remember) are the exception, not the rule.  Similarly the nature of viruses, notable for playing an important role in maintaining life on Earth, varies considerably.  They contain DNA or RNA but can only reproduce in relationship with living tissue, by injecting that DNA/RNA into live cells.  Many are not associated with disease at all whilst others may cause mild symptoms that go entirely undetected.  There are traces of DNA in animals that look like they came from a virus; so it could be they are a source of genetic variability that allows for rapid adaptation.  Perhaps this propensity for rapid adaptation is what has led to diseases that cross the species barrier, the likes of Ebola and HIV.

Genesis: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life
Sadly living in a fallen world and upon a cursed earth, believers and unbelievers alike develop cancer and other diseases.

Of course when science decides to employ the very nature of viruses in order to effect a cure for one condition, who knows what will happen (or may already have happened).

polyglide wrote:TMG,
     I cannot understand how you feel that to reject one aspect means you reject all aspects of a matter, this does not make sense.

     You can believe in part or the whole in any matter.

     Of course science has it's good and bad points and I have never said anything other.

     With regard to weapons of distruction etc; these were made for one purpose only, to inflict injury and death, just as all the chemical and biological weapons were.

     So I accept that to use science to cure and develope technology is of benifit and accept the part science has played I also feel that science has also been a source of destruction by means obtained through science for that purpose.

    I see no contradiction whatsoever in the above.

             

Hi Polyglide,


Well...I suppose what I am trying to do is trying to understand what you might not like about it.

The means of destruction you are taking about is achieved through science, yes agreed, a gun for example is based on scientific principles but so is the cooker you have and the car you might drive.

I think its worth repeating that science and the method of scientific process will not just go away, it is a tried and tested method of achieving results and much science and progress relies on other science. We are a curious species it helps us to learn and is beneficial to us on the whole.

Religious people and atheists alike have used methods of science to maim and destroy.

So the real point is not that science or the process itself is bad, but how the results might be used or misused *by people*

Would you tend to agree?

Foxcliffe wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote: god appears to be more impotent than omnipotent ....  [and] benevolent

That God chooses not to use his unlimited power in no way negates its existence.  Just as I have the power to turn on every light in my house but choose not to do so - choosing not to use power is not the same as lacking it.

Hi Foxcliffe,

I didn't actually say that it did, merely that limitless power means limitless choice, and to not use it and allow ubiquitous suffering is the opposite of benevolent.

Foxcliffe wrote:God in his infinite wisdom, having already tried first to shelter his creation from corruption then later to rid the world of its ill gotten sons, gave man freedom of choice. HE might by now have learnt by his mistake and, perhaps, wish to withdraw his gift.  However, having given, would it make him more powerful to take that freedom away or does it show a greater level of control that HE keep word and abide by that earlier decision?

The problem I have with scenario is that this deity is claimed to be omniscient and so would know the future exactly, so I would find his disappointment strange, even illogical or irrational, if this were true. Beyond that if he exists and is omnipotent then he could leave us with free will, negate evil, stop suffering, and whatever he wanted instantly by will alone, as you say omnipotence is unlimited power, what's more it's illogical to suggest there is a best way for such a being to do something as this implies again a limit to it's power. I know this smacks of pedantry, but the claim that an omnipotent being exists creates such illogical paradoxes.

After all, is this not a choice faced by any and every parent watching their offspring grow to adulthood - to give that child room to grow or keep it safely locked in a darkened room?

Human parents are not omnipotent, nor omniscient, so it's not a rational comparison for me I'm afraid. I also find it telling how often apologetics invoke this kind of anthropomorphised deity with father analogies, the desire to anthropomorphise deities pre-dates contemporary monotheisms by many thousands of years.

Foxcliffe wrote:Where in the Bible does it claim God to be benevolent?

It's a traditional claim of Christianity about God.Though I agree that the bible doesn't paint a very benevolent character at all, especially in the OT. I wasn't making the claim myself as I'm an atheist, just questioning the validity of the claim as traditionally made by Christians, or Muslims or Jews for that matter.

Though there were times, such as when HE cast Adam & Eve from the garden, that HE did indeed show benevolence Genesis: Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

That doesn't strike me as particularly benevolent to be honest, why cast them out at all? He put a tree in harms way that he specifically didn't want them to touch, you'd have to wonder why he'd tempt fate then blame them, let alone curse them? Of course I find myself again wondering why an omniscient/omnipotent being didn't see this coming?

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Just to get the ball rolling, why didn't the Bible contain a detailed explanation of this cure?

Foxcliffe wrote:Oh Sheldon, I'm not quite sure if you know this but the Bible is a guide written for and to those wishing to undertake a Christian way of life.

I was being slightly facetious to emphasis a point, but why not include something in there that unequivocally could only have been communicated by an omniscient deity? I mean of course it contains some beautiful sentiments and even some profoundly moral lessons, but many more that are morally reprehensible, and I haven't read anything in there that needn't be entirely human in origin, indeed much of it reflects the prejudices, ignorances and superstitions of the era it is derived from, and that for me is too much of a coincidence to ignore I'm afraid.

Foxcliffe wrote:It contains much that is practical, moral and just

Well yes, but then humans are capable of being practical, moral and just, these not have come from a deity, which is what I was driving at, and given how badly some of those morals have dated and how accurately they so often reflect the human attitudes of the epoch they derive from rather than omniscience that I find compelling evidence that it is not divine but human in origin.

Foxcliffe wrote:Having said that, although it is 'the Word', there is no evidence to suggest that it was every word that God ever spoke.

Then what validity can one lend to it, and what singles out the parts that are purportedly from a deity? Also I always wonder when I hear this rationalisation, why would a deity that wanted us to believe in it allow it's message to be distorted to the point where it gave no discernible evidence of being derived from omniscience?

Foxcliffe wrote:In an age wherein most of the disease you speak was unknown what use would man find to record its nature?  After all it was only as recently as last century that man discovered that tissue cells were anything more than a blob of protoplasm.  Indeed it was argued that many parts of the body served no function whatsoever.  More recently, after its initial discovery, much of DNA was labelled “junk” because it does not code for proteins so was assumed to serve no function.   And let's not forget that, in all likelihood, there is always the possibility that some of the original was lost after the debacle over the tower of Babel if nothing else.

As I said I wasn't being entirely serious, just making a point. Though again it should be easy to see how a being that possessed omnipotence might have spared billions the pain and suffering of diseases as horrible as leprosy, cancer, or malaria, the shocking death infant mortality rate from childbirth, not to mention the unimaginable emotional trauma. Why would a deity allow it's message to be lost? Why would an omniscient deity not know beforehand that it was going to be lost?

Foxcliffe wrote:It is not and was never meant to be an apothecary.  Even so God does give direction for a healthy lifestyle in a number of places, and not least for the diet HE suggested to Adam & Eve as necessary to maintain it.  Does man follow the guidelines given?  Don't answer that, it was rhetorical.  No man does not follow God's guidelines, and hasn't (in the western world) since before the industrial revolution.

If I was being highly critical, and lets face it I am I'd have to wonder why he waited until just a few thousand years ago to share this diet, when humans have existed for roughly 150000 years.

Foxycliffe wrote:Genesis: And God said, Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. When was the last time you lived on a diet of fruit & seeds?

Never, though I was a vegetarian for a 18 months in my younger days. I try to balance the amount of meat i eat, especially red meat which I abstain from for most meals. I have no yearning desire to live solely off fruit and seeds, but I eat plenty of fruit. No religious beliefs are needed for this though. Just a basic knowledge of the nutritional benefits that science has evidenced exist in eating fresh fruit and veg in your diet.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote: prayer had no discernible effect

Foxcliffe wrote:Is there any validated scientific evidence of anything that is more than a placebo effect? This is quite powerful after all, and well documented by medical science, as is sudden and unexplained remission from seriously illness like cancer. I'd need to see some tangible medical research for cases cited like this, as they all too often are either exaggerated by the faithful, or even fabricated. As Mrs Shaw is find of saying in these discussion, when prayer grows back an amputated limb I'll be a lot less sceptical. Facetious I know but I wonder why a deity moves about unseen doing "favours" that are both arbitrary and almost impossible to properly validate.

Foxcliffe wrote:Whilst the report you intimate did not show a positive outcome, research into the power of prayer as a means of healing is yet in its infancy and there are other studies that do indicate greater success.

It would be great if you link some of these, as you say there isn't a great deal of this kind of research, as medical research is very expensive and is about healing the sick primarily and not confirming religious beliefs.

Foxcliffe wrote:  There is also much anecdotal evidence

Sorry foxcliffe, but I am deeply cynical about anecdotal claims of this nature, as faith and objectivity are not easy bedfellows, but if you can link any clinical trials or medical research this would be a very good discussion point.

Foxcliffe wrote:Harvard scientist Herbert Benson, MD, has documented the physical changes that take place in the body when someone meditates using MRI scans. Prayer, of course, can be used as a genuine form of meditation.

I mediate myself, a throwback to my martial arts enthusiasm of my youth. Though obviously this tends to indicate that if praying is beneficial it needn't necessarily have anything to do with the veracity of the belief in a deity.

Statistics indicate:

Foxcliffe wrote:Hospitalized people who never attended church have an average stay of three times longer than people who attended regularly. Heart patients who participate in a religion were were less likely to suffer serious complications following surgery. Elderly people who attended church regularly had a stroke rate much lower that of people who never or rarely attended.

interesting stats, a link to the research would help, but again it's lazy thinking to assume this validates the beliefs itself, as it's easy to see how those conditions would be improved quicker in people who perhaps found it easy to be happy and relaxed. As I say you have to be careful what you read into such research, and a link might help give a more complete picture.

Foxcliffe wrote:In Israel, religious people had a 40% lower death rate from cardiovascular disease and cancer.

So much for the Christian God and Allah.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:god thought out and then designed & created all these diseases why would it want to cure them?

Foxcliffe wrote:Isaiah: he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty; Genesis: God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. (served up the wrong way round but they make better sense that way)

So if everything in God's creation was good and with purpose, why would disease-causing bacteria and viruses exist in the world?

Because no God exists? Though I sense you're looking for a different answer of course.

Foxcliffe wrote:Bacteria that cause disease (which developed as a result of the Fall remember) are the exception, not the rule.  Similarly the nature of viruses, notable for playing an important role in maintaining life on Earth, varies considerably.  They contain DNA or RNA but can only reproduce in relationship with living tissue, by injecting that DNA/RNA into live cells.  Many are not associated with disease at all whilst others may cause mild symptoms that go entirely undetected.  There are traces of DNA in animals that look like they came from a virus; so it could be they are a source of genetic variability that allows for rapid adaptation.  Perhaps this propensity for rapid adaptation is what has led to diseases that cross the species barrier, the likes of Ebola and HIV

.

Or diseases simply fight and adapt through evolution to survive using living hosts, they'd not need to contemplate or even be aware of the suffering they caused, indeed this might be a distinct disadvantage in their survival. I saw very interesting documentary that premised the idea that AIDS or HIV+ had jumped species through the habit of some of the poorer African peoples of eating wild 'bush meat' but failing to cook it properly. Primate blood containing the virus would have been ingested and the rest was pure maths. I'm not sure what evidence we have to link disease and suffering to the fall, but the narrative it's contained in is replete with demonstrably erroneous claims, so I'm dubious, sorry.

Foxcliffe wrote:Of course when science decides to employ the very nature of viruses in order to effect a cure for one condition, who knows what will happen (or may already have happened).

I'm not sure such wild speculation is justified, as medical science if properly adhered to rigorously tests all treatments and medicines to avoid such results. What evidence have you that this treatment runs any such risks? I have no medical knowledge to speak of so please keep it concise and simple for me.

Good post, plenty to consider.

Hi, TMG,
Of course I agree, if science had not progressed then many things that assists and enables a better life would not have become available.

The only reservation I make is that if mankind had trodden the proper path in the first place science would not have been necessary.


regards.

polyglide wrote:Hi, TMG,
          Of course I agree, if science had not progressed then many things that assists and enables a better life would not have become available.

         The only reservation I make is that if mankind had trodden the proper path in the first place science would not have been necessary.


                                             regards.        

Hi Polyglide,

I agree with the first sentence, but have to question the second...

My point about science is relatively simple...

"***The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: "the world of science and technology"***"

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/science

Its a meaning that I at least am relatively happy with for the purposes of discussion.

So science is not an actual entity but is a neutral discipline and cares not how results might be used, science itself is impartial and has to be.

I think we would have always developed science in all its forms, I think its part of what we are. there is a reason why fire can be created and how and even this is part of scientific knowledge, is it not good to learn?

I would question and would be interested in what scenario or road you think that mankind could have gone down that would have made this unnecessary or how we could have even avoided developing this discipline, considering that mankind is an intelligent curious species with language and history...

As I see it, it is inevitable that we would have developed this practice, or do you not agree, if not then I would be interested in why?  

Thanks Polyglide.

polyglide wrote:Hi, TMG, Of course I agree, if science had not progressed then many things that assists and enables a better life would not have become available. The only reservation I make is that if mankind had trodden the proper path in the first place science would not have been necessary. regards.  

Based on the life expectancy of 20 ish years, disease, murder, rapine, pestilence, famine, and the vast majority of humans dying in childbirth that humans were free to revel in for almost 150000 years prior to contemporary empirical science no doubt. I'm just not sure what evidence you have for this rose tinted existence beyond it being claimed by other believers and the bible?

By comparison the massive benefits science has given is self evident.

TMG wrote:I would question and would be interested in what scenario or road you think that mankind could have gone down that would have made this unnecessary

One that involved a geocentric universe?

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

One that involved a geocentric universe?

A discworld perhaps like Terry Pratchett's creation? Even so they had magic to compensate and according to Clarke`s three laws:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws

so I remain confused by it all, perhaps polyglide will be kind enough to explain

TMG wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

One that involved a geocentric universe?

A discworld perhaps like Terry Pratchett's creation? Even so they had magic to compensate and according to Clarke`s three laws:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws

so I remain confused by it all, perhaps polyglide will be kind enough to explain

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

If you cross yourself and say that three times whilst turning anticlockwise CW Bradbury will appear like magic, and start spouting his right wing fascist holocaust denials. So be careful as that was the final nail that got me banned from the Amazon forum, they don't like you badgering the fascists for evidence.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

If you cross yourself and say that three times whilst turning anticlockwise CW Bradbury will appear like magic, and start spouting his right wing fascist holocaust denials. So be careful as that was the final nail that got me banned from the Amazon forum, they don't like you badgering the fascists for evidence.

I hope not but then I am not looking for evidence, I would just would like to see how Polyglide can justify two seemingly opposing sentences, besides they have good human moderation on this site its a bit different I am glad to say

TMG wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

If you cross yourself and say that three times whilst turning anticlockwise CW Bradbury will appear like magic, and start spouting his right wing fascist holocaust denials. So be careful as that was the final nail that got me banned from the Amazon forum, they don't like you badgering the fascists for evidence.

I hope not but then I am not looking for evidence, I would just would like to see how Polyglide can justify two seemingly opposing sentences, besides they have good human moderation on this site its a bit different I am glad to say

I'm afraid Polyglide's posts don't show any recognition of the fact that his claims are contradictory, he seems to think that it's not the least incongruous to claim an omnipotent being allows untold suffering and evil but is simultaneously omni-benevolent. The more subtle apologetics haven't been touched, he prefers to alternate between the two mutually exclusive claims intermittently, first blaming Satan, then claiming God can do anything, and never noticing the paradox between being able to choosing to do anything, and the culpability for those choices then being blamed on another.

So I'm not sure he'd recognise the subtle difference between what science gives us, and what we choose to do with that knowledge. He claims to think that creationist blogs represent scientific evidence for a creator, and sees no problem there either. Check it out...

HERE

When I pointed out that this didn't represent scientifically validated evidence his response claimed that:

Polyglide wrote: "As usual, no acceptance of facts that do not conform to your personal requirement,"

I think the irony was entirely lost on him that scientific requirements are quite specific and my own opinion doesn't feature any more than those of the theists on that site. You'll see what I mean when you follow that link to "Evidence for God". I mean the title just wreaks of scientific credibility after all. Now who else do we remember who thought Googling a claim and then posting it up with a link was a coup de grâce to any argument or discussion?

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

I'm afraid Polyglide's posts don't show any recognition of the fact that his claims are contradictory, he seems to think that it's not the least incongruous to claim an omnipotent being allows untold suffering and evil but is simultaneously omni-benevolent. The more subtle apologetics haven't been touched, he prefers to alternate between the two mutually exclusive claims intermittently, first blaming Satan, then claiming God can do anything, and never noticing the paradox between being able to choosing to do anything, and the culpability for those choices then being blamed on another.

So I'm not sure he'd recognise the subtle difference between what science gives us, and what we choose to do with that knowledge. He claims to think that creationist blogs represent scientific evidence for a creator, and sees no problem there either. Check it out...

That's o.k. Perhaps he just hasn't thought some of these things through, which is why a good place to start in any discussion about science and religion is at what science *is* or at least how others understand or regard it.

The reason for this is because its a fundamental error, no real discussion can take place about any actual details at any later point otherwise as it will just turn out that science is bad or evil, a vague woolly statement and untrue. (No doubt justified by some of the horrors that science has been used for) while conveniently avoiding all of the benefits that science provides us with and ignoring the fact that there is just no getting away from it and there never has been, it happens to be integral to who and what we are.

One step at a time, an important one I think in this case. I will look through the other stuff and the link when I can.  

Thanks Sheldon.

TMG wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

I'm afraid Polyglide's posts don't show any recognition of the fact that his claims are contradictory, he seems to think that it's not the least incongruous to claim an omnipotent being allows untold suffering and evil but is simultaneously omni-benevolent. The more subtle apologetics haven't been touched, he prefers to alternate between the two mutually exclusive claims intermittently, first blaming Satan, then claiming God can do anything, and never noticing the paradox between being able to choosing to do anything, and the culpability for those choices then being blamed on another.

So I'm not sure he'd recognise the subtle difference between what science gives us, and what we choose to do with that knowledge. He claims to think that creationist blogs represent scientific evidence for a creator, and sees no problem there either. Check it out...

That's o.k. Perhaps he just hasn't thought some of these things through, which is why a good place to start in any discussion about science and religion is at what science *is* or at least how others understand or regard it.

The reason for this is because its a fundamental error, no real discussion can take place about any actual details at any later point otherwise as it will just turn out that science is bad or evil, a vague woolly statement and untrue. (No doubt justified by some of the horrors that science has been used for) while conveniently avoiding all of the benefits that science provides us with and ignoring the fact that there is just no getting away from it and there never has been, it happens to be integral to who and what we are.

One step at a time, an important one I think in this case. I will look through the other stuff and the link when I can.  

Thanks Sheldon.

I have tried to explain falsification & peer review as they salient to the claims he was making about creationism and evolution, and the part these play in the scientific process. He's just ignored them, hasn't even bothered to acknowledge that they are part of the scientific process. In fact he has accused me of being obsessed with them, and that I am just ignoring the "evidence," which is quite funny in itself coming from someone who repeatedly claims his bird breeding has disproved Darwinian species evolution.

TMG,
I will try againt to explain how I view the suffering on earth and at the same time feel that God is the be all and end all of life and all that exists along with being benevolent etc;

Firstly we have no idea how matters are controlled in the demain of God and all it's inhabitants, so we are in the dark for a start and can only base our opinions on mankinds limitations.

We know that on earth many challenges are made that result in many different outcomes, many of which are distasteful and would have been batter left alone, however, many are made and those involved have to suffer the consequences.

I have explained that for reasons which we cannot understand, God has given Satan the chance to turn all mankind against him, the rules of which we do not know.

What we do know is that from that day onwards mankind started going down hill and as a consequence has suffered from many, many different problems and the only time God has interfered is when Satan has actually tried to kill instead of influence God's people.

God must be suffering more than anyone can imagine at the results of Satan's works, however, suffer little children, not at God's hands but Satan's and in the end God will reward the faithful and deal with Satan.

Dr, Sheldon,
Of course I understand what science is, it is the persuit of knowledge, to put it in a nut shell.

I have never said that my experience in breeding animals nullifies Darwin's theory, what I said is his theory is self evident and I do not know why it took so long to discover that in certain changed circumstances animals will evolve, not into another species but to counter the changes. Also plant life etc;

I have just read this morning the latest scientific thinking which says that the sixth extinction is well on it's way that involves humans etc;

The blame is firmy put at the hands of humans, mainly scientists, who have destroyed many of the elements necessary for the well being of the earth.

Claudine,
My one and only purpose is to attempt to enlighten peoples minds to other things than material.

I would be very interested in your opinions on the world today and the future and the past.

My belief is based on my experience in life and the Bible and whilst the latter offers many problems at face value, the seek and ye shall find I feel is a safe bet.

regards.

Claudine,
I think you will find you are not alone.

polyglide wrote:TMG, God has given Satan the chance to turn all mankind against him, the rules of which we do not know.

The point you seem to be missing is that claim implies a choice on God's part, as I have repeatedly pointed out such a choice by a being that that has limitless choices does not indicate benevolence, quite the opposite. This in a nutshell is why theology has created theodicy to try and answer this apparent paradox in the claim that a benevolent yet omnipotent deity allows ubiquitous suffering.

Polyglide wrote:  What we do know is that from that day onwards mankind started going down hill  and as a consequence has suffered from many, many different problems, and the only time God has interfered is when Satan has actually tried to kill instead of influence God's people.

Actually we don't know that at all, another point I'm sure I have made more than once. Since suffering was ubiquitous for literally hundreds of millions of years on this planet before humans evolved your assumption requires the denial of known scientific facts from many different branches of science. Besides we can and do know that the quality of life many humans enjoy now is vastly superior to previous epochs precisely thanks to the advances of scientific knowledge. A huge increase in life expectancy for instance, due both to industrialised farming and medical science. Better treatments and operations and again due to medical science, the alleviation of untold suffering and pain.

Now this is the point of my thread title, that science has provided us with the knowledge for untold benevolence if we choose to use it that way, whereas the claim that a benevolent being exists that has limitless power, knowledge, and subsequently choice, if it were true, has stood by and allowed it all.

Introducing Satanic fantasies that are not supported by any real evidence doesn't help either, as a being with omnipotence has limitless choices, so must be culpable for the choices it makes, more than any other, since no other being including Satan has limitless choices in this scenario.  

Polyglide wrote:God must be suffering more than anyone can imagine at the results of Satan's works,

I have two problems here, firstly it's irrational to anthropomorphise a being that is immortal and possesses limitless power and knowledge by assigning human emotions to it. There is no reason to assume such a being would experience human emotions at all.  

Polyglide wrote:suffer little children, not at God's hands but Satan's

The problem here is you're repeating the paradox, God is the one with limitless choices in this scenario, not Satan, if it were true then God would have to be more culpable. Especially if this deity is claimed to be omni-benevolent, when Satan is not.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Of  course I understand what science is, it is the persuit of knowledge, to put it in a nut shell.

                I have never said that my experience in breeding animals nullifies Darwin's theory, what I said is his theory is self evident and I do not know why it took so long to discover that in certain changed circumstances animals will evolve, not into another species but to counter the changes. Also plant life etc;  I have just read this morning the latest scientific thinking which says that the sixth extinction is well on it's way that involves humans etc; The blame is firmy put at the hands of humans, mainly scientists, who have destroyed many of the elements necessary for the well being of the earth.

You can't claim you accept Darwin's theory of evolution in the same post you deny it, by claiming it doesn't happen, here:

Polyglide wrote: in certain changed circumstances animals will evolve, not into another species

Darwin's scientific theory is predicated on species evolution, so you are denying it, and it's truly bizarre that you can''t see this especially since I've pointed it out innumerable times. Darwin's theory was evidenced enough to satisfy the very specific requirements of the scientific  process, and has withstood over 150 years of scientific scrutiny and still does whilst massing more and more evidence all the time. Including entirely new branches of science like genetics and the study of DNA, all of which supports Darwin, and species evolution.

Sorry but I have learned to take your wild claims about what science is asserting with a pinch of salt as they either are not scientifically validated at all, or else they don't match the claims you're making. Like this latest one, it is obvious that if any evidence were properly validated that falsified Darwinian species evolution then it would be world news, the  scientists involved would be household names overnight, they'd receive the Nobel prize, and of course most tellingly science would have abandoned species evolution. The vast medical research each year that is based on species evolution would be redundant and have to be rethought.

Now ask yourself has any of that happened? The problem is you have in the past made these wild claims based on nothing more than creationist propaganda, like the link you provided as scientific evidence for the existence of God, which of course was nothing of the sort, unsurprisingly since science cannot investigate anything supernatural, as it fails to satisfy one of it's most basic requirements in that any claim must be falsifiable.

Polyglide wrote:The blame is firmy put at the hands of humans, mainly scientists, who have destroyed many of the elements necessary for the well being of the earth.

1. Blame for what?
2. Put by whom, and what qualifies them for this?
2. What have scientists destroyed? List them please?
3. Please link peer reviewed scientific evidence for these claims. - otherwise they're nonsense.

polyglide wrote:

   God must be suffering more than anyone can imagine at the results of Satan's works, however, suffer little children, not at God's hands but Satan's and in the end God will reward the faithful and deal with Satan.    

   

Sheldon I think raises some good points and maybe I could question this part also...Surely Satan works for God in all cases? In order to provide the choice between temptation/desire and not succumbing to those temptations? is this not the very basis of religion, the choice that is supposedly given freely as a means of test?

This means of course that God is ultimately responsible for *everything* if God is all powerful and this is the case, does it not?

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, I have just read this morning the latest scientific thinking which says that the sixth extinction is well on it's way that involves humans etc; The blame is firmy put at the hands of humans, mainly scientists, who have destroyed many of the elements necessary for the well being of the earth.  

Did you read this:

In terms of scale, we are now living through one of those brief, rare episodes in Earth history when the biological framework of life is dismantled. It is in every sense a tragedy – but, in itself, it might be viewed as just one more episode of biological destruction in our planet’s history. The Earth has been here before – and will be here again, before its life is completely extinguished a billion or so years into the future.

Or this:

The changes to the Earth’s biology do, therefore, include a rapidly developing mass extinction event, as charted by Gerardo Caballos and his colleagues.

But this may be seen as part of a much more thoroughgoing transformation. Fundamental new patterns are emerging that may be compared, say, with the change, half a billion years ago, when a biosphere consisting only of microbes gave way to one dominated by multicellular animals.

Could this new planetary pattern develop – perhaps well enough to help prevent a mass extinction? Currently, the technosphere is more a parasite than a partner of the biosphere – it is terrible at recycling, for instance.

But some aspects might help alleviate the worst effects of global warming. For instance, humans have caused the greatest trans-migration of species in history. Some of these invasive species may be well adapted to new higher temperatures. And better use of energy and materials can reduce pressure on remaining natural ecosystems.

Averting a mass extinction is still possible – but we don’t have much time.

So far from this being the fault of science, your favourite whipping boy, it may well fall to science to help prevent it, as indeed it has fallen to science to identify it. You're simply reading into this what you want to believe, based on your a priori beliefs.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, I have just read this morning the latest scientific thinking which says that the sixth extinction is well on it's way that involves humans etc; The blame is firmy put at the hands of humans, mainly scientists, who have destroyed many of the elements necessary for the well being of the earth.  

Did you bother to read past the headline at all?

NOT THE FIRST TIME
Previous mass extinctions
Geological history includes many periods when species have died in large numbers. In each of the following, more than half the Earth’s species disappeared:

1 End-Ordovician, 443 million years ago.
This coincides with very rapid glaciation; sea level fell by more than 100 metres, devastating shallow marine ecosystems; less than a million years later, there was a second wave of extinctions as ice melted, sea level rose rapidly, and oceans became oxygen-depleted.

2 Late Devonian, c 360 million years ago.
A messy prolonged event, again hitting life in shallow seas very hard, and an extinction that was probably due to climate change.

3 Permian-Triassic mass extinction, c 250 million years ago.
The greatest of all, ‘The Great Dying’ of more than 95% of species, is strongly linked with massive volcanic eruptions in Siberia that caused, among other effects, a brief savage episode of global warming.

4 Triassic-Jurassic mass extinction, c 200 million years ago.
This has been linked with another huge outburst of volcanism.

5 Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction 65 million years ago.
This killed off the dinosaurs and much else; an asteroid impact on Mexico probably did the damage, but the world’s ecosystem may have been weakened by volcanic outbursts in what is now India

In what way is this anything to do with science?

Genesis 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

That attitude is far more to blame for the human exploitation and destruction of the animal kingdom. Science has taught us a very different truth, that we share a kinship with animals through evolution, a shared ancestry.

Dr, Sheldon,
We are talking about today and not when scientists were not around.

It is disturbing when one considers that another can think the past extinctions has any relevance to day, however, I have come to expect such negativeity.

spelling, spelling, spelling, spelling. spelin.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                We are talking about today and not when scientists were not around.

                 It is disturbing when one considers that another can think the past extinctions has any relevance to day, however, I have come to expect such negativeity.

               

You're going to have to explain what this means sorry? I offered known scientific facts, you offered your own opinion based on your religious beliefs. Un evidenced of course.

Dr, Sheldon,
My only point being, what happened previously has nothing whatsoever to do with the present situation.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                My only point being, what happened previously has nothing whatsoever to do with the present situation.

Yes it does. That's a demonstrable fact as the evidence I linked and quoted shows???? Why do you think you can just wave it away with your opinion because it doesn't suit you and not offer any reason at all? You haven't even bothered to read it have you?