It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
You do not understand me correctly. To me, the word God, means (potentially) a creator of the system we exist in and of; the universe.
I only offered the solution to suffering (if one is in such a state) is death, which fortunately is guaranteed, so noone will suffer eternally. So it seems we are given a chance to exist as ourselves for some time, and the rest is up to us and our environment. take it or leave it.
Originally posted by Nightaudit
reply to post by ZeuZZ
The intelligent designers are against evolution. That is the reason why it is fair to mock them in a scientific context.
They could as well start to argue that the earth is flat.
Surely we do not know the answer to the big question yet, and I personally do believe in some form of deity behind all this.
But we shouldn´t forget scientific fact in the process.
Originally posted by Y10H5W6H5
So Freaking Stupid....GOD Said, Let There be Light, and there was...
Originally posted by blamethegreys
In light of God's intended purpose for mankind, I think maybe the flaws ARE the perfection, as they provide plenty of challenges and trials with which He can provide us the means to grow as intended.
Originally posted by Prezbo369
So those 3,000+ deaths a year (mostly children) due to choking to death have failed the challenge/trial?
And those of us that have not choked to death while eating/drinking have passed?
What do we win? (ofc other than not dying)
Does passing these challenges/trials make us a better ghost/soul/spirit/whatever while we're in heaven? (or not)
Originally posted by blamethegreys
You see death as a cruelty, I see it as a door. If God chooses to bring someone through the door early, maybe it means that even at such a young age those individuals have learned what they needed here and have passed the challenge.
My point was that in those situations, those of us left behind have more opportunity to grow from the pain of the loss. Hardship and tragedy accelerate our ability to grow if we choose positive over negative emotions. So the imperfections that can hold us back or kill us are by design, to create an imperfect and challenging life. Further, the imperfections in one can encourage multiple people to grow emotionally.
Hmmm...what do we win? I guess in a nutshell I would say being in harmony with the universe? Perhaps being free (or nearly free) of anger, envy, hatred, lust, selfishness? No one wants to admit it, but generally speaking we choose how we face the world. In this debate we have to work with the supposition that God is the embodiment of these positive virtues. And additionally, he commands the universe. So mayhaps there's a direct connection between these positive virtues, the universe and God's power?
It's not a pass/fail/here's your grade thing. It's an effort thing. I could strive my whole life to improve my character. Another could drink and cheat and whore his way through life, but at some point realize he wants the positive and begin his work to improve. In the end, my reward is no greater than his reward. We both figured out what was important in this life, and were actively improving ourselves to the end.
But your questions are straying from the design debate. You're seeking a strawman in my theory, trying to disprove the premise that the purpose of the designed dictates the form. You can't turn on my answers and say my proposed "purpose" is invalid.
Discussing the validity of purpose is a philosophical debate, whereas the current debate is scientific regarding the design itself.
No there's not a jot nor a tiddle of science in this thread, the debate is regarding theology or more specifically the claims made by intelligent design proponents.
The only purpose you've proposed has been 'emotional growth' in response to the flaws found in the human body and the subsequent deaths. And as I stated above, only the naive or green would make such an argument. If anything, your reply has shown how such a worldview can leave you incredibly emotionally detached.
Originally posted by blamethegreys
My logic-based debate challenges the assumed supporting data, on which Assertion 1 hinges. By supplying an alternate, valid standard for the design of humans, I have logically invalidated Assertion 1. Without Assertion 1 being true, then Lewstherinthelamon's conclusion cannot stand, and is also invalidated.
You accuse me of being from some "WLC (sic) school of immorality, where the death of children is actually a good thing...... " ( I don't get the reference, did you mean those Westboro Baptist Church cretins? )
Just because I didn't explicitly say that loss of a child doesn't cause indescribable emotional pain, just because I didn't state that the loss of a child leaves you with an empty hole in your heart that never closes DOES NOT mean you should just assume I am some blithe imbecile spouting feel-goodies.
You see death as a cruelty, I see it as a door. If God chooses to bring someone through the door early, maybe it means that even at such a young age those individuals have learned what they needed here and have passed the challenge.
My point was that in those situations, those of us left behind have more opportunity to grow from the pain of the loss. Hardship and tragedy accelerate our ability to grow if we choose positive over negative emotions. So the imperfections that can hold us back or kill us are by design, to create an imperfect and challenging life. Further, the imperfections in one can encourage multiple people to grow emotionally.
I assumed that the emotional growth I referred to when I graciously responded to your antagonistic questions wouldn't be ignorantly assumed to replace the grieving process. The growth I refer to comes after the wounds have closed (I don't know if they ever heal, really) I would explain further, but I sadly can't trust that you won't just twist and interpret my words into more vile and hurtful accusations.
Except it falls flat on its face when you consider that the 'imperfections' found in the design of the human body are also found throughout the natural world in an assortment of creatures that do not have the tools to 'grow emotionally'. This coupled with the fact that the 3,000+ people that do choke to death each year (mostly children) due to the 'design' of the larynx are in actuality a very small percentage of the human race which in turn only effect and allow very few to 'grow emotionally'. And what about those that never heal (as you mention), never get over the death of their children or loved ones? what about those who's whole lives are ruined due to this 'intended imperfection'?
Remember you said...........
I understand it's easy to become riled when someones argument leaves you feeling frustrated, but in this instance it's also left you contradicting yourself and not making much sense whatsoever....
Here's a pro tip that you could include in your 'Toolbox'.....think about your arguments before you present them. That way you'll become constant, you'll not have to completely change what it is you're attempting to say and in doing so lose all credibility in your arguments and above all you'll make sense...
Originally posted by blamethegreys
Sorry, but the constraints of the original argument made were the HUMAN design. Bringing addition species to the debate does not change the fact that I still invalidated the argument.
Your final questions has no bearing whatsoever on the argument, and is an attempt to drag me back into theologic discussion.
You appear to have visited my "toolbox" link, so maybe you should review the "[url= fallacy[/url]", becuase your overall goal in continuing this argument is based on that logical fallacy. You are trying to find fallacy in my non-logic based theology discussion, and therefore dismiss my my logical rebuttal to the original argument.
Who did you listen to in that clip? WLC or Pakman? Pakman sounds like you, I bet you heard what he said, while the WLC clip sounded like adults in a Charlie Brown Special.
Sorry, I wasn't feeling frustrated, I was a little pissed that your would be such an ass as to accuse me of having no children, having not experienced death and loss of that scale. In retrospect, I shouldn't have been. This is the interwebz, where there's no face to connect to a voice, and people often post things they would hold back in a live conversation.
If the argument is a nail, and my tool needs to be a hammer, it doesn't matter if it is silver or blue, big or small. If it does the job, that is all that is required. You are arguing that the color & weight of my hammer matters.