It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Why does he have to be 'real'? The impact of the probably fictive character has had impact on mankind and can be considered in terms of that impact.
Quote: ["So, lets start with logic... Logically, why is God a bad designer?"]
Round two, probably identical to round one: Because of the un-necessary amount of suffering.
You are a decent person; with no harm in you, I believe. And your worldview seems rather gentle.
I certainly don't dislike people, just because they disagree with me.
Myths have the same impact as alleged 'real' entities. The myth can be evaluated.
'God' as a myth, or 'god' as an alleged reality. No difference for the thread concerning 'bad design'
Just go back and read round one; we'll both save time this way.
My cat is a maniac killer, who kills from hunger as well as a sport, as some of his victims aren't especially attractive for him as food. That's suffering, with no need of philosophical implications of 'god's' failed plan or character-deficiency motives.
So the suffering is observable as a part of 'real' creation (not only an alleged divine creation). To make part of this suffering meaningful or meaningless in a theistic context requires a validation of such a theistic context, BEFORE the question of meaninful/-less can be considered.
Maybe the flying spaghetti monster is the 'real god', and he just has a good laugh because of all the suffering. As I've said constantly, perspectives need as much validation as 'answers'.
The perspective of Kali thuggees made killing 'good, for a buddhist this is 'bad'. So validate your perspective, before you use it as a measure-tape.
I'm rather content with my society.
In genesis 1 it was stated, that both humans and the other animals were to be vegetarians.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29And 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.
30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Here we can go directly to some scientific hypotheses, which can be very helpful in this context: The anthropic principle and negative enthropy. But before doing this, I want to make sure, that you can and will follow such a direction.
Living on a farm as I do, I hear the death-screams of animals around me constantly. And to postulate, that their fear and pain is counter-balanced by estetics is anthropocentric.
E.g. the mice slowly killed by my cat probably don't think: "Help, I'm dying. What a beautiful sunset. Gurgle, squiik".
You could, but I would expect you to validate this re-incarnation 'perspective' then, before you use it is an 'explanation'.
As there's no reason to see a meaning, like the one you suggest...no sale.
I find the hypothesis of karma right on spot, but first it has to be validated, and then I believe, you have its basic principles wrong. Karma is a WAY OUT of a dysfunctional universe/(cosmos?), not a new-age 'spiritual-growth' thingy
the aim is still to end dualism and RETURN to experiencing reality.
Karma is related to how well this aim of returning is achieved, not a question of starting from scratch and grow.
So as with other theist arguments with postulated absolutes, there is NO help to get here either on alleged theist answers on 'suffering'. It's only guesses and the alleged creation models are, if taken seriously, actually lead to the conclusion, that a creator is incompetent.
The fact that vestigial structures reveal a similarity in structure and position with organs in presumed ancestors, but lack the function found in the ancestors, can be considered evidence for evolution—specifically, the "theory of descent with modification," or "theory of common descent."