I'm not going to assume that you meant ALL cases of appendicitis are fatal without surgery, because that's false. I am, however, going to suggest that you look into what causes appendicitis or where appendicitis is most common. Obviously we're still in the research phase, but we're beginning to see a relationship with appendicitis in diet, race/geography (often affects diet), smoking, pollution and several other intestinal problems (Crohn's in my case).
I should have said "modern medicine". My point was that humanity has existed for the past 100,000 to 250,000 years. For 99% of that time-frame, appendicitis was death. Furthermore the age range appendicitis affects the most is 16-20; prime breeding age.
I can see "all of this only proves how much of a liability the appendix is" coming, but let's think about the religious side of this. God instructed us on what to eat and how to treat our bodies (each religion has different interpretations) and many of us ignore these instructions. Is it His fault for allowing our choices to harm us, or our fault for making those choices?
The old "we're corrupt because of original sin" argument. I can't refute this, because it's not falsifiable.
On that note though, the instructions are incredibly vague and typically don't mesh with modern life. The mormon "hot drinks" instruction is something I feel would be the best example to give. I'm sure you know the story. Poor coca-cola.
If I were a god and I gave instructions, they'd be crystal clear. God is meant to be omnipotent, after all.
Whether or not you believe in God doesn't matter because to argue against God requires you to be willing to adopt the context of God. In this way, to suggest God designed us poorly is misguided if we do not operate our bodies in the way God instructed us to do so. If God doesn't exist, this doesn't matter and your point is moot. If God does exist, your point is still moot because it is forfeiting the responsibility we have for our bodies. You are focusing on possible negative outcomes rather than how they were derived.
How do you reconcile this statement with the idea of a benevolent creator? Just curious. It seems rather malicious to plant a biological bomb in every human's body that detonates in 1 out of every 20 people.
We falsely use this exact argument in a wide variety of situations, an easily relatable one being video games. Someone might say, "[FPS title] sucks balls because you don't command an army of thousands." Others will argue, "The game wasn't designed for RTS, you're doing it wrong."
Stepping back into the realm of science, we are quick to reject God when religion tries to credit Him for what we don't understand, but are equally quick to blame God for what we don't understand when doing so would undermine His existence.
I disagree, and this is one of my pet peeves about religions. Plenty of religious people can look at a beautiful setback and say to themselves "Isn't God's work beautiful?" Few feel that when looking at the underbelly of a taranchula.
Secondly, that recent earthquake I think validates my point. People are quick to thank God for saving them from natural disasters, but pretty quick to blame their fellow man instead when the opposite happens.
The line of thinking most arguments against intelligent design employ often devolves to, "Why didn't God make humans the most perfectest peoples ever in the history of evers!? Why aren't we invulnerable!? Clearly God is an idiot and I could do better." I'm exaggerating the point, but I think you can see what about this I find unreasonable. I agree parts of the body could be more efficient, but I credit much of this to a lack of understanding. If science is really about the truth, it should be focused on discovering it rather than ignoring it.
Firstly it's not a "lack of understanding" regarding these inefficient parts. We can trace WHY they are in this dysnfunctional state because of our ancestors. The primate hominids we evolved from used their appendix to store bacteria which could digest plant cell walls, allowing them to better subsist of a diet of plants. We don't do this anymore, and the organ has been relegated to the dustbin along with a variety of other parts.
As for "well we don't have to be made perfect for there to be a god", you're right, we don't. I don't have an argument against that and I agree with the statement. I just want it to be clear that the human body could be improved by a medical student in a few hours by only taking things away, let alone a god.
I've repeatedly mentioned that I believe God used evolution to create humanity. Why do you and nearly everyone here insist that they must be separate?
The thing with the religious is that you never know what you're going to get. You all have different beliefs and different levels of those beliefs. Most reject evolution. You're an exception, and I applaud your acceptance of theistic evolution.
Every organ in the body can kill you. . . This is a generic template for arguing why any organ in the body is "imperfect" because in reality they all are. I argue this point because I view our understanding of the appendix the same way most view bloodletting or former uses of electroshock therapy. We hardly understand what the appendix is for yet jump to the conclusion that it has no use. This then misleads us to assume it is safe to remove, should be removed and God is an idiot for letting us have it.
You're right, but it's not the same thing. You can die of a heart attack, but you need a heart. It's a requirement. You can die of appendicitis but you don't need an appendix. At all. If we could edit out the genetic code that forms the appendix, we'd have less people die.
Furthermore we know exactly what appendixes are for, because they exist in many other animals who do use them. It's not a case of ignorance.
The tonsils are another part of the body we don't understand and routinely remove. Just because we can remove these things doesn't mean that doing so is desirable and we are better off for it. We could certainly remove an arm or leg (or both) and survive, but you don't see people claiming God is an idiot for this. If anything, the resilience of the body (google "man with half a brain") in spite of severe damage says more about why we can lose our appendix or tonsils than the actual purpose of either. The body adapts to suit our needs. If we dubbed every replaceable or removable part of the body "useless" we'd have quite the list. Much of the body is designed to facilitate removal in the case of irreparable damage.
There's "useless", there's "could be safely removed" and then there's "having it inside you is a danger".
The plantaris muscle in the back of your foot is useless. It's from the days where we required greater foot manipulation and control to hang onto trees. It is found in many primates. We are no longer capable of this control, yet still retain the muscle. It, however, doesn't cause much harm and can simply be labeled as useless.
"could safely be removed" is essentially your arm/leg argument. You could remove it, however that would have a negative impact on average human life-span.
"having it inside you is a danger" is exactly what the appendix is. Removing it from the human genome and restarting human history would see better survival rates of humanity.
It bothers me that science enthusiasts rail against religion for jumping to conclusions, yet have no qualms doing so themselves. I agree that religious people have a tendency to jump the shark and make factual statements that can't be supported, but many use science to do the same thing. You can't attack religion or ideas supported by religion by employing the same methods you deride religious individuals for using.
The difference is that science is self-checking. Many scientists do jump to conclusions. In fact, starting with a proposed conclusion is the first thing you do in every test. An error in a scientific field will eventually be corrected.
Religion opposes change and has a colourful history of executing people who tried to correct it.
"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change." -The Dalai Lama
This is actually one of the reasons why Buddhism is so respected by atheists. It's a religion. It has it's own variety of stupid, unproveable beliefs. However if science shows a flaw in Buddhism, then Buddhism changes.
I didn't get to address your point that the coccyx has no use, but that's not true either. It is important for muscles, tendons and ligaments. Wisdom teeth would have been a much better part of the body to point to, but I doubt that would have been as dramatic or effective at linking death to God's "unitelligent design."
I chose the coccyx because it's another relic of our primate hominid ancestors. You can see the bone being put to use today in primates as part of their tail structures.
I feel that on this particular point, you are making the mistake of believing we have such definitive knowledge of the appendix that what you say is fact. Most respected sources specifically mention "we don't know/understand" somewhere in their description. You can't call it a "fatal flaw in our design" when we don't have a complete understanding of what that design is.
I feel like you're close to invoking god of the gaps here. Furthermore we have a solid understanding of most of human biology, and the evolutionary history of most of our organs. Organs like your brain still retain an air of mystery. Your appendix does not.
I've looked over your list and I can agree that some of the points make sense, but this particular point is not one of them. I don't consider the "inefficiency" of the human body a "brute fact" when many of these points lose validity as our understanding of them grows.
As I said, a junior medical student could upgrade a human body by only removing things in an hour in a fashion that would, overall, improve human survivability and the efficiency of the human body. I provided a list of things that are wrong with our "design". You can question the integrity or use of these items, but be aware that you are going against established medical consensus.
I still haven't seen Eiviyn's "if there has to be an unmoved mover, why does it have to be God instead of the universe itself?" argument countered properly.
I'll get no reply to it. I've never seen anyone give a reasonable response to anyone who's asked it, and I thoroughly enjoy watching religious debates. It's always dodged.
"Prove your religion is the right religion."
"Prove your god doesn't require a cause."
"Why doesn't God heal amputees?"
Not played the last one yet, but those are my favourite cards.
I'll get no reply to it. I've never seen anyone give a reasonable response to anyone who's asked it, and I thoroughly enjoy watching religious debates. It's always dodged.
"Prove your god doesn't require a cause."
Not played the last one yet, but those are my favourite cards.
TheZizz already dealt with that. Its a very herp derp type of question that, I dont know, people expect a ....Wait, just this in, The cake I was planning to bake just baked itself. It created itself!!. Goodluck proving it did not require a cause. Why the cake dun that?, Dunno, How the cake dun that?, Dunno, Why the cake dun that when it did, Dunno, What made the cake dun that?, Dunno. Time to create illogical theories to make the illogical seem plausible. Be right back. Dont believe anything else no matter how obvious it seems, cuz ye never know`.
God is the indescribable, uncreated, self existent, eternal source of all reality and being.<Logically, and obviously?
What makes you think time is eternal?. Can you prove that?. If anything can be eternal, why do the heathen refuse the God concept?(And we add intelligence to that because its self evident). The first cause is beyond time, and beyond entropy/cause and effect. Otherwise the universe could not have been created.
My point was that humanity has existed for the past 100,000 to 250,000 years
False.
"Prove your religion is the right religion."
Apart from already dismantling your theories on multiverse, parallel universes, eternal universes, (pity had not did the Evolution part), and clearly demonstrating tangible evidence for intelligent design while dismissing the notions of randomness and chance(Chaos Gods). Ive already shown the Bible to be Historically accurate, Scientifically accurate and Factually accurate as far as possible. The claims made in the Bible are huge, but the 3 mentioned aspects can back it up. Unlike any other religion, Which Ive even challenged but no atheist made an attempt(The Quran was paltry effort. Where are the Zillion other religions that confound us for choice!?)
"Why doesn't God heal amputees?"
From another source:
Your question seems to merely be a very specific re-articulation of the general argument against God due to the existence of evil. Formally restating your argument:
-An omnipotent God would heal amputees.
-Amputees are not healed.
-Therefore, an omnipotent God does not exist.
You could just as easily replace the major premise with anything else unpleasant: why do people lose limbs in the first place? The ultimate question you’re really asking is Why Does God’s Creation Include Death and Suffering? If you already believe that flaws in the world disprove God, then naming any flaw that God doesn’t fix—or any good deed God doesn’t do—will just reaffirm your perspective.
Answering your question completely requires a few tangential comments:
-Miracles aren’t a grab-bag of goodies for us to enjoy; rather, God uses miracles in particular points of time for very specific purposes. God doesn't need to prove Himself to us (we’re on trial, not Him), nor does He “need” to bless us. When He does bless us, it is entirely out of mercy.
-God has done greater works than restoring limbs. If He created the entire universe out of nothing, spoke all plants and animals into existence, sculpted and breathed life into the first two humans, and raised His Son from death, it is clear that He has the power to heal amputees if and when it is His will.
-If there is no God, why should we care if people have lost limbs? To borrow from C. S. Lewis, in a truly godless world, amputations wouldn’t be “good” or “bad”; they would simply be, a fact of life no different from a tree shedding leaves. Attacking theism on a moral basis undermines the argument.
-You qualify your own question with “[e]xcept the ear that Jesus put it back.” You may as well ask, “If God is all-powerful, why did He never part the Red Sea—except for that one time in Exodus?” And not only is your argument qualified; it is also, essentially, an argument from silence. Even if the Bible doesn’t record the healing of an amputee, that doesn’t mean God never has
Not played the last one yet, but those are my favourite cards.
Your beliefs are proven absurdities, Your reasons for disbelief are subjective and bias, You hardly display an apt for looking at things in the possibility it might be true. Dont need anything else to say.
The one question about the king sacrificing his daughter to God. While mistranslation is strongly pointed out in the Hebrew, He just as well could have done exactly as the text says so because we dont really have a concise understanding on it. In that case, I should have mentioned the latter which I wanted to, but regret not doing. But your point stands.
For every other part I did not attempt/resort to dodgy excuses wherein the scripture was genuinely misused and taken out of context(aka not looking at the very next line after, or before)
"Its getting there. The one world government still has to come, and its evident such a thing is just looming"
Agreed.
"The acting forces would be our free will, cause and effect, the angelic and demonic activity, God."
Either god chose to limit himself, which i'm assuming, or you're polytheist. Also our free will is pretty much cause and effect. When i think about it why is cause and effect there in the first place? God has made prophecies which you blindly believe in, he must know exactly how things will play out, since he's unlimited, except from the angelic and demonic activities, limitations which he himself created...
I would like to remind you of one of the first theories mentioned in this thread, Occam's razor.
"I do not know if the system is dynamic or static and mathematically balanced in every way. I also do not know the relation between all the factors, which is more predominate or what sort of balance exists."
You're afraid of not knowing when it comes to the creation of the universe but here it's fine? Explain.
I literally cannot continue to read this thread without feeling sick
from anger and sadness. I won't continue in this thread for the sake of
my own sanity.
As you should. As all decent people should. Yet taintedwisp/soulcarver only seem to get offended that someone doubts the existence of some magical man in the sky.
The Catholic organization Knights of Columbus has spent $15.8 million to deny marriage rights to lesbians and gays since 2005. How else could that money have been spent?
While I could care less about people who keep their beliefs to themselves, the religious right can go fuck itself. These people show absolutely no respect for others, and don't deserve any in return. If they want to dictate public policy and tell others how to live their lives based on archaic bronze-age beliefs, then they should get ready to have those beliefs be rightfully mocked & insulted.
If the appendix can store bacteria, it follows that C. difficile would find its way inside. In a balanced colon, this wouldn't matter as the other bacteria would prevent it from overpopulating. Without this balance, C. difficule leaves the appendix and runs rampant.
I never denied this possible explanation. But again, you're not acknowledging the fact if there was no appendix, this problem would not exist in the first place.
Quote:
Logically, having an appendectomy removes this hidey-hole (preventing C.
difficile rampancy in colons with poor diets), but also precludes other
bacteria that may or may not be beneficial from residing there.
That is not the point. There are plenty of ways for a designer to keep beneficial bacteria in reserve without having to hope that it gets trapped in some semi-rotting orifice and doesn't start causing problems.
Quote:
I provided their opinion because it undermines the point you're trying
to make with this study. You state that we know removing it has no
consequences, but the quoted segment shows that they probably don't have
a complete understanding of the "true function of the appendix."
The authors are also biased because this experiment invalidates their original hypothesis. If they don't know anything about the true function of the appendix, then their quotes on the subject are meaningless. It's the results you look at in a scientific study, even if they don't suggest causality. To say that the authors' speculation (which has already been proven wrong) supports your position is dishonest to say the least.
Quote:
I refuse to acknowledge this "unique" issue because it's brazenly false.
There are a plethora of examples where food gets lodged in both the
small intestines and colon. Crohn's is a common reason for elevating to
a colectomy/bowel resection (similar to appendectomy) whether due to
blockage caused by strictures (narrowings) or severe inflammation.
Again, not the point. The bowels are 20 feet long, and yet appendectomy remains one of the most common surgeries. Sure, you're going to get bowel obstruction, but this one tiny segment has caused way more grief for humans than it had a right to.
Quote:
You're dramatizing the "negative" aspects of the appendix. It is by no
means a time bomb. If your statement held any merit, the majority of
people would suffer appendicitis (to later burst) compared to the
present minority. There aren't enough "explosions" to warrant such a
generalizing statement.
If the appendix wasn't a ticking timebomb, then surgeons wouldn't routinely remove it even during unrelated surgeries. This is a brute fact.
They do the same thing with wisdom teeth. Luckily I still have mine because they never gave me any trouble, but there are plenty of people for which this is not the case.
Quote:
My very first point was hygienic practices, not
obstruction.
Humanity had god-awful hygiene for the vast majority (100k+ years) of its existence. Are you acknowledging then that appendicitis killed off way more than its fair share of people in ancient times? Wouldn't an omnipotent creator have accounted for this?
Quote:
To say that appendicitis caused by
infection has nothing to do with diet is ignorant at best.
Where did I say appendicitis has nothing to do with diet? See, I can be pedantic too.
Quote:
I was worried you might miss this, but thankfully you didn't and now I
get to follow up.
Ugh. You can't give me an article that you link as "increased risk of Crohn's disease following an appendectomy" when the article demonstrates that this is actually a myth. I realize that you may be on the defensive here, but there is no saving face from this and I didn't think that you would actually try to play it off like you meant to do it all along. It's not a big deal, I know you don't have time to read every giant article, but it looks a tad hypocritical when you accuse me of not reading.
Quote:
Another study mirrors the results of the previous indicating that an
appendectomy is a risk factor for Crohn's. It even goes further to
suggest that a tonsillectomy is also a risk factor for Crohn's.
Ulcerative colitis appears unaffected by either. I guess we found you a
good reason for cutting out your organs!
Looking closer at Crohn's, we find that diet plays a significant role in
preventing relapse. While this particular study used a semi-vegetarian
diet described in the article, it explains the benefits of similar
diets:
"Although we designed our SVD with gut bacterial flora in mind, both
plant-only (vegan) and plant-based (lacto-ovo-vegetarian,
semi-vegetarian) vegetarians are shown to have low rates of cancer,
cardiovascular disease, obesity, and total mortality. Plant-based diets
are recommended for prevention of cancer and other lifestyle-related
chronic diseases. Therefore, SVD will not only be effective for gut
inflammation, but also promote the general health of IBD patients."
So if diet can be used to treat IBD's, it stands to reason that the risk
of appendicitis could be reduced given the tentatively established
relationship with Crohn's. Especially considering that inflammation is a
key component in all of the above.
Even if you doubt these relationships, we've already agreed that
low-fiber diets contribute to appendicitis. The diets described above
are high in fiber. If, for whatever reason, you change your mind, I'll
leave the relationship between low-fiber diets and the prevalence of
fecaliths (or fecalomas) here for you to review. Fecaliths being the
most common cause of obstructions leading to appendicitis.
One study suggest that some cases of appendicitis could be triggered by
air pollution, which is consistent with an increased risk of Crohn's for
smokers (Crohn's is considered an incurable chronic disorder with
"remission in less than one third of the patients with colonic CD," yet
the study on SVD diets successfully prevented relapse; score one for
diet?).
I'm aware that this isn't scientific fact, but it would be silly to
ignore the growing evidence of connections between these issues. There
are many, many more studies/articles detailing these findings, but I
limited them to ncbi exclusively to avoid "religious bias."
As I already said, I don't deny that the appendix has important functions. My entire point is that these functions could be moved to another organ and avoid the problems of an inflamed appendix. Many animals don't have an appendix. Just like there are animals that are stronger than us, can see further than us, and have to intake much less food than we do. And that's because evolution does not create organisms to be "perfect". Cows don't have an appendix but a fully functional cecum, and that's because they still eat leaves like our ancestors used to. It is common knowledge that the appendix is a vestigial organ (this does not mean it has no functions).
Here's an interesting article that talks about the vestigiality of the human appendix and it's suboptimal design:
Quote:
The human appendix is notorious for the life-threatening complications it can cause. Deadly infection of the appendix at a young age is common, and the lifetime risk of acute appendicitis is 7% (Addiss et al. 1990; Hardin 1999; Korner et al. 1997; Pieper and Kager 1982). The most common age for acute appendicitis is in prepubescent children, between 8 and 13 years of age. Before modern 20th-century surgical techniques were available, a case of acute appendicitis was usually fatal. Even today, appendicitis fatalities are significant (Blomqvist et al. 2001; Luckmann 1989).
The small entrance to this dead-end pocket makes the appendix difficult to clean out and prone to physical blockage, which ultimately is the cause of appendicitis (Liu and McFadden 1997). This peculiar structural layout is quite beneficial for a larger cellulose-fermenting caecum, but it is unclear why gut lymphoid tissue would need to be housed in a remote, dead-end tube with negligible surface area. In fact, 60% of appendicitis cases are due to lymphoid hyperplasia leading to occlusion of the interior of the appendix, indicating that the appendix is unusually prone to abnormal proliferation of its lymphoid tissue (Liu and McFadden 1997). Such an occurrence would be much less problematic if the interior of the appendix were not so small, confined, and inaccessible from the rest of the gut. In many other primates and mammals, the GALT lymphoid tissue appears to function without difficulty in a much more open, bulbous caecum with ample surface area.
But I suppose you'll tell me how this link only serves to prove your point. It's the same way that you like to say that the more you learn about science, the stronger your faith becomes (an oxymoron). The problem with creationist agendas is two-fold:
1) Assume that a god exists.
2) Assume that everything is proof of god.
Quote:
You're suggesting that if God really was intelligent, he'd
make the appendix shrink to avoid later complications. You base this on
the incredibly limited understanding we have of its function. You
attempt to defend this by claiming that we only notice the appendix when
it has problems. How is that an argument? I don't notice most things in
my body unless their given me problems. That's the point of a healthy
body. . . it doesn't get in your way.
1) I used the words "intelligent designer", not god. The design of the appendix is not remotely intelligent and everyone here knows it.
2) It's an argument because this 8 mm. part of our 20 feet bowel is one of the most common causes for surgeries. 7% of people in the USA get a problem with this one small segment. Despite everything that recent studies are finding, you can't deny that this design where shit gets clogged so easily is sub-optimal. Think about it. It's a long finger-like tube. It is hard to clean it up even with a high fiber diet.
Quote:
Various forms of disease are
becoming more prevalent in the world and in most cases we don't know
why. Until we understand why disease is increasing again (after a period
of rapid decrease), we can't honestly claim that they are no "major
adverse effects" to appendectomies. Smoking was once considered
harmless! We now know better...
Yes we can totally claim that. Sure, it's less than optimal to live with a removed appendix, but the appendix does not have essential functions necessary to our survival....as has been demonstrated by literally thousands of people. Are you really comparing smoking to appendectomy?
Quote:
I find it ironic that you use the straw man defense because I've been
very careful to address only the points you raise, as you raise them. On
the other hand, you seem to enjoy putting words in my mouth, skewing
facts and ignoring anything that doesn't support your opinions.
...you just gave me an entire spiel on the appendix's functions when I explicitly told you that I never denied that they exist. Who is strawmanning?
Quote:
I've more than demonstrated my ability to read AND comprehend both your
points and the subject matter. You continuously fail to do so.
Give it a rest already. You should be more humble after totally failing to read your own article on Crohn's disease & appendectomy.
Quote:
You conveniently ignore the link you provided "proving Joseph's Smith
fraudulent behavior" that turned out to be nothing of the sort. I
addressed it part way through this post.
No. Just no. You asked for the proof that he was arrested: "I’d appreciate it if you’d provide what you consider to be reliable documentation for this."
I picked that site because it had the cleanest picture. Just because I don't want to get into a debate about dubious, unfalsifiable history does not mean I'm "ignoring" anything. I realize that there is probably no way I'll be able to convince you that Joseph Smith was a fraud, you can google that stuff for yourself or watch the south park episode. A picture of his arrest record is enough for me, but not for you.
Quote:
If you take offense to me using the medically accurate term, toxin, in
relation to inflammation, (note the causes) perhaps you should consider
the fact that you really have no idea what you're talking about. I
didn't blame "all our ills" on toxins. For the Nth time, you're putting
words in my mouth.
You said "Appendicitis is brought on by poor hygienic practices as a result of the appendix attempting to remove toxins from the body."
This is wrong, appendicitis is brought on by obstruction or infection. The creation of toxins is a symptom. So you backpedal and say "An obstruction caused by improper hygienic practices". You then tell me how the appendix can remove toxins, when everybody knows that the entire problem with the appendix is that bacteria gets trapped in there too easily, which creates pus and eventually releases toxins. Saying that the appendix removes toxins is like saying that Hitler killed a few bad guys back in his day.
I've simply tried to demonstrate the correct etiology of appendicitis. I know that religious people love appealing to authority, but as far as I'm concerned, there is no reason you should be considered as one. So you have Crohn's disease and read many articles. Well I have headaches and I've read many articles on headaches; that still doesn't make me an authority on headaches.
TheZizz already dealt with that. Its a very herp derp type of question that, I dont know, people expect a ....Wait, just this in, The cake I was planning to bake just baked itself. It created itself!!. Goodluck proving it did not require a cause. Why the cake dun that?, Dunno, How the cake dun that?, Dunno, Why the cake dun that when it did, Dunno, What made the cake dun that?, Dunno. Time to create illogical theories to make the illogical seem plausible. Be right back. Dont believe anything else no matter how obvious it seems, cuz ye never know`.
Yeah, but... this isn't an answer to the question. And, you're missing the point of Eiviyn's argument.
You: God exists.
Someone else: Why?
You: Because there needs to be an unmoved mover, among other reasons.
Someone else: Ok, so what you're saying is basically this:
"We exist > we were created by our planet. Our planet exists > it was created by the universe. The universe exists > it was created by God. God wasn't created by anything, it always existed."
You: Basically, yes.
Someone else: Alright. Then why bring God into it? Why not say the following:
"We exist > we were created by our planet. Our planet exists > it was created by the universe. The universe exists. The Universe wasn't created by anything, it always existed."
You don't need God at all to follow this logic. It just adds an unneeded step of 'was created by' to the ladder.
You: No, God is the unmoved mover. Belief that the universe wasn't created by God is stupid.
Or: you run out of arguments and return to 'because it just is'. The point is that there IS no answer to this argument. What you're doing in your above post is saying stuff like "it's obvious God exists so we have reason to believe in him", but that's an entirely different thing altogether. Eiviyn is asking HOW you know that God is per definition the last step in the 'was created by' ladder. You cannot know this. You can believe so, certainly, but you have no argument to disprove the statement "God himself was created by something". It's not about what is obvious or what is needed, it's about the fact that your argument is "everything needs a creator, so too does the universe; only God doesn't" is countered by the argument "so how do you know that God is an exception to the 'everything needs a creator' rule?".
TheZizz already dealt with that. Its a very herp derp type of question that, I dont know, people expect a ....Wait, just this in, The cake I was planning to bake just baked itself. It created itself!!. Goodluck proving it did not require a cause. Why the cake dun that?, Dunno, How the cake dun that?, Dunno, Why the cake dun that when it did, Dunno, What made the cake dun that?, Dunno. Time to create illogical theories to make the illogical seem plausible. Be right back. Dont believe anything else no matter how obvious it seems, cuz ye never know`.
"Creationists never answer this question. They always dodge."
God is the indescribable, uncreated, self existent, eternal source of all reality and being.<Logically, and obviously?
What makes you think time is eternal?. Can you prove that?. If anything can be eternal, why do the heathen refuse the God concept?(And we add intelligence to that because its self evident). The first cause is beyond time, and beyond entropy/cause and effect. Otherwise the universe could not have been created.
He's indescribable. Okay. Why then do you insist on giving him attributes? Are you admitting then that you make these attributes up?
Apart from already dismantling your theories on multiverse, parallel universes, eternal universes, (pity had not did the Evolution part), and clearly demonstrating tangible evidence for intelligent design while dismissing the notions of randomness and chance(Chaos Gods). Ive already shown the Bible to be Historically accurate, Scientifically accurate and Factually accurate as far as possible. The claims made in the Bible are huge, but the 3 mentioned aspects can back it up. Unlike any other religion, Which Ive even challenged but no atheist made an attempt(The Quran was paltry effort. Where are the Zillion other religions that confound us for choice!?)
I never proposed any of those things.
I'll remind you, since you forgot; "If god doesn't need a cause, then why can't the universe/multiverse/whateververse have that attribute?"
I've still not had an answer to this question from you. Just more dodges.
"Why doesn't God heal amputees?"
From another source:
Your question seems to merely be a very specific re-articulation of the general argument against God due to the existence of evil. Formally restating your argument:
-An omnipotent God would heal amputees.
-Amputees are not healed.
-Therefore, an omnipotent God does not exist.
You could just as easily replace the major premise with anything else unpleasant: why do people lose limbs in the first place? The ultimate question you’re really asking is Why Does God’s Creation Include Death and Suffering? If you already believe that flaws in the world disprove God, then naming any flaw that God doesn’t fix—or any good deed God doesn’t do—will just reaffirm your perspective.
Nah, that's not it. People think prayer helps.
Prayer has not once in recorded history been used to successfully heal an amputee.
Why? Because that's one of the few things that your body can't self-heal.
Cancer can go into remission, illnesses can fade, and nothing fails like prayer.
Answering your question completely requires a few tangential comments:
-Miracles aren’t a grab-bag of goodies for us to enjoy; rather, God uses miracles in particular points of time for very specific purposes. God doesn't need to prove Himself to us (we’re on trial, not Him), nor does He “need” to bless us. When He does bless us, it is entirely out of mercy.
Funny how he stopped performing miracles since the invention of video and audio recording devices though, isn't it?
-God has done greater works than restoring limbs. If He created the entire universe out of nothing, spoke all plants and animals into existence, sculpted and breathed life into the first two humans, and raised His Son from death, it is clear that He has the power to heal amputees if and when it is His will.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is God able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is God both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is God neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
-If there is no God, why should we care if people have lost limbs? To borrow from C. S. Lewis, in a truly godless world, amputations wouldn’t be “good” or “bad”; they would simply be, a fact of life no different from a tree shedding leaves. Attacking theism on a moral basis undermines the argument.
Human compassion and solidarity, perhaps? Doing good things without having to believe you're going to get some celestial reward, perhaps? Generally not being selfish, maybe?
-You qualify your own question with “[e]xcept the ear that Jesus put it back.” You may as well ask, “If God is all-powerful, why did He never part the Red Sea—except for that one time in Exodus?” And not only is your argument qualified; it is also, essentially, an argument from silence. Even if the Bible doesn’t record the healing of an amputee, that doesn’t mean God never has
Just like people who claim to have been abducted by aliens, this is completely worthless without verifiable proof.
Your beliefs are proven absurdities, Your reasons for disbelief are subjective and bias, You hardly display an apt for looking at things in the possibility it might be true. Dont need anything else to say.
I only believe in things that are demonstrable. The rest, I admit that I don't know rather than lie and pretend I do.
And this is why I feel it is pointless to argue religion with a religious person.
Doesn't matter if they run out of arguments, they'll just resort to But maybe or It's that way because the bible says so arguments.
EternalWraith:
He would, He would. Its a trap to assume God is waiting for the slightest opportunity to cast us into a `hell` or torment us.
In what way is it a trap? God hasn't done the slightest shit to even make me remotely believe in him, so I could just take it as he doesn't like me, I mean, it makes absolutely no sense for him to stay disguised, if he is so caring about us, why doesn't he just save us all?
Such an attitude leads to despair and should not be entertained.
What attitude? That I don't believe there's an invisible man up in the sky waiting for me in a majestic kingdom?
Again, he hasn't done anything to make himself seem real, and 'such attitude' hasn't lead me into despair, but rather I feel happy when looking at christians/muslims (..etc) who instead waste their time protesting about gay/lesbian marriage. Wasn't God a loving and forgiving person? Well, why doesn't he ''allow'' gays to marry, and more importantly why does he accept such behavior?
ll it takes is the slightest attitude of repentance and change of heart for a person to save him/herself. I dont think anyone is going to get intentionally screwed at the end of their lives. Every person bears some responsibility for their actions and inner most decisions.
Well, obviously, he gave us free will, but then again he's the almighty God who's supposed to have his finger in everything, or isn't he as powerful as you say?
We have our conscious that acts as one means of warning , then we have knowledge, and all sorts of persuasive and true forces that can lead us on the right track. Who better to judge that , than God?.
I don't know, Santa seems pretty good at predicting when children have been bad.
No, but seriously, I still don't see the logic in this.. He's the almighty God with unlimited power and he wants to save us, yet he doesn't spend any energy at all to appear to us as our God.
But instead he just sits quietly, looks down on us and takes bets on who's gonna die and get to heaven first.
The whispers that tell us God is evil, cruel, and is wanting to kill/destroy and damn us. Where do they come from?
Isn't the bible 'God's word'? Well, it's estimated he killed about 2.5 million people, he tells you to rape the virgin daugthers of your enemy and enslave people, you can apparently sell your daughter as a (sex?) slave and you should kill people that works on the sabbath? I sense hypocrisy, unless the Devil wrote the bible, which is funny because then you're obeying the Devil's words.
If you're supposed to heed God's word, why doesn't anyone kill the gays instead of just protesting in the streets?
We`re not talking `Dungeons and Dragons` definition of Sorceress here(Throwing fireballs?)... Occult practices, witchcraft, fortune telling, etc. No different than modern day occult. Not that I believe they have any power in their efforts, but they obviously are deluded in thinking so.
Wait... Waaaaaiiiit... ??? Really?
You say they're deluded because they believe in witchcraft and fortune telling, yet you're sitting here expressing there's a magical mr.nice guy up in the sky?
The human body is extremely resilient and has many fail-safes.
And this is why I feel it is pointless to argue religion with a religious person.
Doesn't matter if they run out of arguments, they'll just resort to But maybe or It's that way because the bible says so arguments.
That depends. Not everybody can be 'converted', but it speaks to your own skills of logic and reason and general thinking as well. If you're so sure about your position, you should be able to propagate it in such a way that it makes sense, and make at least some sway from religion. Which is kind of what I'm 'attempting' to do with what I said about EW's verificationism earlier - if I can get him to realize and accept thinking errors I think he makes, I can spur him into thinking further about religion and its position in his life. If one would genuinely think that everybody religious is already 'beyond saving' because you think they believe in something impossible, he would not only be as close minded as the religious people he calls out, but he'd also encounter some serious ethical problems in his life.
That depends. Not everybody can be 'converted', but it speaks to your own skills of logic and reason and general thinking as well. If you're so sure about your position, you should be able to propagate it in such a way that it makes sense, and make at least some sway from religion. Which is kind of what I'm 'attempting' to do with what I said about EW's verificationism earlier - if I can get him to realize and accept thinking errors I think he makes, I can spur him into thinking further about religion and its position in his life. If one would genuinely think that everybody religious is already 'beyond saving' because you think they believe in something impossible, he would not only be as close minded as the religious people he calls out, but he'd also encounter some serious ethical problems in his life.
If it wasn't for the internet I'd still be religious. Unfortunately, when someone changes his mind, it is never IN the thread itself. It's always afterwards when all the absurdities & inconsistencies start to gnaw at your subconscious.
True. There's a word for this 'phenomenon' in French I think. I forgot what it was, but it describes that situation where someone says something to you, you give a lame response and then figure out an awesome comeback two hours later when you're thinking the situation through. Even if you never really see the results though, getting people to think and even just defend their viewpoints beyond "ur stupid" is a skill by itself.
I should have said "modern medicine". My point was that humanity has existed for the past 100,000 to 250,000 years. For 99% of that time-frame, appendicitis was death. Furthermore the age range appendicitis affects the most is 16-20; prime breeding age.
One of the major points I'm trying to illustrate is diet plays a significant role in the prevention of appendicitis. Certainly isn't foolproof, but few things are. The particular diet that is shown to be most effective is one that is largely vegetarian/vegan with limited quantities of grains, dairy and meat. In some cases, complete departure from these food groups is recommended. When you go back to this earlier time period, this is precisely the kind of diet they maintained.
The old "we're corrupt because of original sin" argument. I can't refute this, because it's not falsifiable.
On that note though, the instructions are incredibly vague and typically don't mesh with modern life. The mormon "hot drinks" instruction is something I feel would be the best example to give. I'm sure you know the story. Poor coca-cola.
If I were a god and I gave instructions, they'd be crystal clear. God is meant to be omnipotent, after all.
First, I'm not pointing to the Fall of Adam or original sin. I'm pointing to our individual actions and their consequences. Let's remove God from this problem. If 50-100 years from now we prove that humans maintain optimum health through a vegetarian/vegan diet, we'd look back at the majority of the growing illnesses/disease present today and facepalm. This would have nothing to do with God and everything to do with lack of information or sufficient scientific evidence. What many religions suggest is that God (or whomever they worship) already told us this and we're ignoring it.
Second, the word of wisdom (which you are referring to) is the Mormon version of this. It is actually very specific and "hot drinks" refers to coffee and (some) teas. Both contain caffeine, an addictive and harmful substance. Coca-cola has caffeine and is a destructive mix of chemicals. Not surprising why we don't want these in our bodies.
Third, omnipotence is power over everything. I don't agree that you have to give "crystal clear" instructions in order to be omnipotent. Mormons believe that God is intentionally obscure to prevent interference with our ability to choose. The path you describe is precisely that of Lucifer's (not an insult). He wanted everyone to know exactly what they needed to do and he was going to make sure everyone succeeded. In doing this, he deprived us of the ability to choose as you would a slave. This agency is the most important part of the process we experience on Earth. We can't exercise faith if God is so provably obvious that we fear NOT to follow him. I fully agree that this makes the science vs religion argument rather dubious, but I've never suggested otherwise. This is why I find attempting to "prove" religion pointless because to do so is contrary to what religion is.
How do you reconcile this statement with the idea of a benevolent creator? Just curious. It seems rather malicious to plant a biological bomb in every human's body that detonates in 1 out of every 20 people.
To me, the benevolence of God is in his willingness to let us choose for ourselves, even though we may choose wrong and reject him. He then sacrificed his son, Jesus Christ, through the atonement to shift the burden of sin such that we could repent. Had this not happened, we would all be damned as we could not wipe away our sins through repentance. By allowing us to choose, it opens up consequences that God would not want us to suffer, but does not prevent us from suffering. Appendicitis is something I truly believe is largely avoidable and self-inflicted.
This doesn't mean much to someone who doesn't believe in God, but I feel it is selfish to believe that if God were truly benevolent, he'd never let us suffer or sin. You see how important independence is to many in the world today. Much like a parent coddles a child, God would "spoil" us if he made our life sunshine and rainbows. How can we be truly "good" when we've never been tempted with "evil?" These definitions are up for debate, but the idea is that through contrast, our choices gain a substantive weight. We saw both and chose A over B. In this case, we're choosing the delight of harmful foods over the comfort of a healthy body; the problem being we're not quite making this connection.
I disagree, and this is one of my pet peeves about religions. Plenty of religious people can look at a beautiful setback and say to themselves "Isn't God's work beautiful?" Few feel that when looking at the underbelly of a taranchula.
Secondly, that recent earthquake I think validates my point. People are quick to thank God for saving them from natural disasters, but pretty quick to blame their fellow man instead when the opposite happens.
It was deGrasse who first made this point, but this is just the nature of humans. Everyone recognizes beauty differently. There are those who DO consider tarantulas beautiful, and snakes, and rats. I think it's unfair to say that this is limited to religion though. If you weren't religious, not much changes: "Isn't that beautiful?" vs "OMG KILL IT WITH FIRE!" The difference being that one incorporates God.
Your point about the earthquake has less to do with religion and more to do with the fickleness of people. We always try to blame something because it's hard to accept what is beyond our control. If we can blame someone or something, we can act on that. There is a reason why "Who did this!?" is commonly heard when someone rushes to an injured/dying loved one. They are trying to place blame. Alternatively, some place blame as a way of avoiding accountability. If you blame someone else, it can't be your fault and you don't have to feel bad about it. There are also those who try to take the blame for everything as a way of punishing themselves. This delves into psychology, but there is a great deal of discussion on this you can find.
Firstly it's not a "lack of understanding" regarding these inefficient parts. We can trace WHY they are in this dysnfunctional state because of our ancestors. The primate hominids we evolved from used their appendix to store bacteria which could digest plant cell walls, allowing them to better subsist of a diet of plants. We don't do this anymore, and the organ has been relegated to the dustbin along with a variety of other parts.
As for "well we don't have to be made perfect for there to be a god", you're right, we don't. I don't have an argument against that and I agree with the statement. I just want it to be clear that the human body could be improved by a medical student in a few hours by only taking things away, let alone a god.
I disagree on both points. The only reason we don't subsist on a diet of plants is because we have chosen not to. This is where I point to for our lack of understanding. We're led to believe that eating lots of meat, dairy and grains is acceptable and preferable. Evidence is beginning to show that we are healthier when we eat primarily as herbivores and occasionally as omnivores. Just because we CAN eat these foods doesn't mean we should always eat them. Many religions support this and not without respectable results. I'd encourage you to look up the average health of Mormons and 7th Day Adventists. Both promote a semi-vegetarian/vegan lifestyle, but Mormons tend to be less strict about following it.
Because of this, I disagree with the idea that a medical student could improve the body by simply cutting things out. If our diet is a major cause of appendicitis and related factors, then removing it doesn't make sense. Especially if we've already identified that it was used for storing bacteria to digest plants, something many suggest we should be doing more of. This is too similar to liposuction, gastric bypass or the new gastric imbrication. Rather than address the root problem (usually diet), we begin to physically alter the body to compensate.
You're right, but it's not the same thing. You can die of a heart attack, but you need a heart. It's a requirement. You can die of appendicitis but you don't need an appendix. At all. If we could edit out the genetic code that forms the appendix, we'd have less people die.
Furthermore we know exactly what appendixes are for, because they exist in many other animals who do use them. It's not a case of ignorance.
You can't make the statement that we "know exactly what appendixes are for" when there are scientists that disagree with you. Everyone accepts that the heart pumps blood through the body. Not everyone accepts that the appendix is useless and should therefore be removed. What they DO accept is that, as of yet, we haven't successfully linked negative consequences to its removal. I've already pointed out that it might play a role in the development of immune systems in infants. Gradius asked why it doesn't shrink when we're done with it, and while I disagreed, it still is a better solution than preventing its formation entirely.
There's "useless", there's "could be safely removed" and then there's "having it inside you is a danger".
The plantaris muscle in the back of your foot is useless. It's from the days where we required greater foot manipulation and control to hang onto trees. It is found in many primates. We are no longer capable of this control, yet still retain the muscle. It, however, doesn't cause much harm and can simply be labeled as useless.
The plantaris muscle isn't useless. It still provides minor functions in the body. It seems like you're viewing anything that isn't mandatory or largely important to our body as "useless." The appendix, tonsils, coccyx and plantaris muscle have each been associated with minor to potentially major functions of the body. Just because we can get by without them (to some degree) doesn't make them useless.
I don't agree with your classifications. I think each example only fits into "could safely be removed."
The difference is that science is self-checking. Many scientists do jump to conclusions. In fact, starting with a proposed conclusion is the first thing you do in every test. An error in a scientific field will eventually be corrected.
Science isn't as self-checking as we would hope. Science rarely bothers to check itself unless considerable opposite or criticism is raised. Even then, it often rejects and ignores this opposition/criticism unless it is from a source close to the originating idea. Right now, most doctors outside of nutritional health believe diet plays a minor role in most diseases and that medicine is the best answer. It has reached the point that we are creating new diseases as we go (obesity). Nutritionists are pushing the idea that diet is a major part of disease management and prevention. They are even putting forth significant evidence to support it but are being largely ignored.
Sure, errors can be corrected, but sometimes it can take so long that considerable damage is done. I believe that the points you are supporting reflect this. Religious or not, I don't support the idea that removing parts of the body make it better. If this were the case, the majority of humans would suffer similar and consistent issues until these parts were removed.
Right now you're talking about less than 10% of the human population. Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of human death in the world. These and cancer account for close to half of all deaths in the United States. A great deal of these issues are being linked to man-made problems, diet being a major contender. These percentages are continuing to grow.
I think it is a mistake to conclude that the appendix is a major liability when we're doing a much better job killing ourselves. Considering how many of these issues are in areas close or related to the appendix, I don't think we should isolate it from the idea that appendicitis, also, could partly be our fault.
I chose the coccyx because it's another relic of our primate hominid ancestors. You can see the bone being put to use today in primates as part of their tail structures.
And I agreed with this point, but you included it in a list of body parts you considered useless and/or harmful to the body. The coccyx doesn't fit either description. It also isn't really a relic considering we can have tails during the embryonic stage of human development which later turns into the attachment point for muscles/ligaments/tendons. I'd consider the plantaris muscle more of a relic than the coccyx. They ARE both vestigial, though.
I feel like you're close to invoking god of the gaps here. Furthermore we have a solid understanding of most of human biology, and the evolutionary history of most of our organs. Organs like your brain still retain an air of mystery. Your appendix does not.
There is an important distinction between what I am saying and invoking god of the gaps. I am not using the appendix to prove God exists, I'm not suggesting that our lack of understanding means God exists and I'm not saying "Goddidit." I'm stating that regardless of God's existence, the appendix is not as readily understood as you claim it to be. I agree we have a decent understanding of how human biology works, but not so much what affects it. This is evident by the fact that we don't understand how to handle many diseases, cancers, infections and their increasing prevalence.
As I said, a junior medical student could upgrade a human body by only removing things in an hour in a fashion that would, overall, improve human survivability and the efficiency of the human body. I provided a list of things that are wrong with our "design". You can question the integrity or use of these items, but be aware that you are going against established medical consensus.
"Established medical consensus" is a poor word to use here as there are those within this "consensus" who mirror my sentiments. It doesn't matter how you put it, I will continue to disagree because I find the idea that removing parts from the body as anything but beneficial when the parts you routinely point to are not as clear-cut or "wrong" as you suggest.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
@Bounty_98: Go
I should have said "modern medicine". My point was that humanity has existed for the past 100,000 to 250,000 years. For 99% of that time-frame, appendicitis was death. Furthermore the age range appendicitis affects the most is 16-20; prime breeding age.
The old "we're corrupt because of original sin" argument. I can't refute this, because it's not falsifiable.
On that note though, the instructions are incredibly vague and typically don't mesh with modern life. The mormon "hot drinks" instruction is something I feel would be the best example to give. I'm sure you know the story. Poor coca-cola.
If I were a god and I gave instructions, they'd be crystal clear. God is meant to be omnipotent, after all.
How do you reconcile this statement with the idea of a benevolent creator? Just curious. It seems rather malicious to plant a biological bomb in every human's body that detonates in 1 out of every 20 people.
I disagree, and this is one of my pet peeves about religions. Plenty of religious people can look at a beautiful setback and say to themselves "Isn't God's work beautiful?" Few feel that when looking at the underbelly of a taranchula.
Secondly, that recent earthquake I think validates my point. People are quick to thank God for saving them from natural disasters, but pretty quick to blame their fellow man instead when the opposite happens.
Firstly it's not a "lack of understanding" regarding these inefficient parts. We can trace WHY they are in this dysnfunctional state because of our ancestors. The primate hominids we evolved from used their appendix to store bacteria which could digest plant cell walls, allowing them to better subsist of a diet of plants. We don't do this anymore, and the organ has been relegated to the dustbin along with a variety of other parts.
As for "well we don't have to be made perfect for there to be a god", you're right, we don't. I don't have an argument against that and I agree with the statement. I just want it to be clear that the human body could be improved by a medical student in a few hours by only taking things away, let alone a god.
The thing with the religious is that you never know what you're going to get. You all have different beliefs and different levels of those beliefs. Most reject evolution. You're an exception, and I applaud your acceptance of theistic evolution.
You're right, but it's not the same thing. You can die of a heart attack, but you need a heart. It's a requirement. You can die of appendicitis but you don't need an appendix. At all. If we could edit out the genetic code that forms the appendix, we'd have less people die.
Furthermore we know exactly what appendixes are for, because they exist in many other animals who do use them. It's not a case of ignorance.
There's "useless", there's "could be safely removed" and then there's "having it inside you is a danger".
The plantaris muscle in the back of your foot is useless. It's from the days where we required greater foot manipulation and control to hang onto trees. It is found in many primates. We are no longer capable of this control, yet still retain the muscle. It, however, doesn't cause much harm and can simply be labeled as useless.
"could safely be removed" is essentially your arm/leg argument. You could remove it, however that would have a negative impact on average human life-span.
"having it inside you is a danger" is exactly what the appendix is. Removing it from the human genome and restarting human history would see better survival rates of humanity.
The difference is that science is self-checking. Many scientists do jump to conclusions. In fact, starting with a proposed conclusion is the first thing you do in every test. An error in a scientific field will eventually be corrected.
Religion opposes change and has a colourful history of executing people who tried to correct it.
"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change." -The Dalai Lama
This is actually one of the reasons why Buddhism is so respected by atheists. It's a religion. It has it's own variety of stupid, unproveable beliefs. However if science shows a flaw in Buddhism, then Buddhism changes.
I chose the coccyx because it's another relic of our primate hominid ancestors. You can see the bone being put to use today in primates as part of their tail structures.
I feel like you're close to invoking god of the gaps here. Furthermore we have a solid understanding of most of human biology, and the evolutionary history of most of our organs. Organs like your brain still retain an air of mystery. Your appendix does not.
As I said, a junior medical student could upgrade a human body by only removing things in an hour in a fashion that would, overall, improve human survivability and the efficiency of the human body. I provided a list of things that are wrong with our "design". You can question the integrity or use of these items, but be aware that you are going against established medical consensus.
I'll get no reply to it. I've never seen anyone give a reasonable response to anyone who's asked it, and I thoroughly enjoy watching religious debates. It's always dodged.
"Prove your religion is the right religion."
"Prove your god doesn't require a cause."
"Why doesn't God heal amputees?"
Not played the last one yet, but those are my favourite cards.
Sodom and Gomorrah, what was it really like living there?
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
TheZizz already dealt with that. Its a very herp derp type of question that, I dont know, people expect a ....Wait, just this in, The cake I was planning to bake just baked itself. It created itself!!. Goodluck proving it did not require a cause. Why the cake dun that?, Dunno, How the cake dun that?, Dunno, Why the cake dun that when it did, Dunno, What made the cake dun that?, Dunno. Time to create illogical theories to make the illogical seem plausible. Be right back. Dont believe anything else no matter how obvious it seems, cuz ye never know`.
God is the indescribable, uncreated, self existent, eternal source of all reality and being.<Logically, and obviously?
What makes you think time is eternal?. Can you prove that?. If anything can be eternal, why do the heathen refuse the God concept?(And we add intelligence to that because its self evident). The first cause is beyond time, and beyond entropy/cause and effect. Otherwise the universe could not have been created.
My point was that humanity has existed for the past 100,000 to 250,000 years
False.
"Prove your religion is the right religion."
Apart from already dismantling your theories on multiverse, parallel universes, eternal universes, (pity had not did the Evolution part), and clearly demonstrating tangible evidence for intelligent design while dismissing the notions of randomness and chance(Chaos Gods). Ive already shown the Bible to be Historically accurate, Scientifically accurate and Factually accurate as far as possible. The claims made in the Bible are huge, but the 3 mentioned aspects can back it up. Unlike any other religion, Which Ive even challenged but no atheist made an attempt(The Quran was paltry effort. Where are the Zillion other religions that confound us for choice!?)
"Why doesn't God heal amputees?"
From another source:
Your question seems to merely be a very specific re-articulation of the general argument against God due to the existence of evil. Formally restating your argument:
-An omnipotent God would heal amputees.
-Amputees are not healed.
-Therefore, an omnipotent God does not exist.
You could just as easily replace the major premise with anything else unpleasant: why do people lose limbs in the first place? The ultimate question you’re really asking is Why Does God’s Creation Include Death and Suffering? If you already believe that flaws in the world disprove God, then naming any flaw that God doesn’t fix—or any good deed God doesn’t do—will just reaffirm your perspective.
Answering your question completely requires a few tangential comments:
-Miracles aren’t a grab-bag of goodies for us to enjoy; rather, God uses miracles in particular points of time for very specific purposes. God doesn't need to prove Himself to us (we’re on trial, not Him), nor does He “need” to bless us. When He does bless us, it is entirely out of mercy.
-God has done greater works than restoring limbs. If He created the entire universe out of nothing, spoke all plants and animals into existence, sculpted and breathed life into the first two humans, and raised His Son from death, it is clear that He has the power to heal amputees if and when it is His will.
-If there is no God, why should we care if people have lost limbs? To borrow from C. S. Lewis, in a truly godless world, amputations wouldn’t be “good” or “bad”; they would simply be, a fact of life no different from a tree shedding leaves. Attacking theism on a moral basis undermines the argument.
-You qualify your own question with “[e]xcept the ear that Jesus put it back.” You may as well ask, “If God is all-powerful, why did He never part the Red Sea—except for that one time in Exodus?” And not only is your argument qualified; it is also, essentially, an argument from silence. Even if the Bible doesn’t record the healing of an amputee, that doesn’t mean God never has
Not played the last one yet, but those are my favourite cards.
Your beliefs are proven absurdities, Your reasons for disbelief are subjective and bias, You hardly display an apt for looking at things in the possibility it might be true. Dont need anything else to say.
@Mozared: Go
Yep, I see what you mean.
The one question about the king sacrificing his daughter to God. While mistranslation is strongly pointed out in the Hebrew, He just as well could have done exactly as the text says so because we dont really have a concise understanding on it. In that case, I should have mentioned the latter which I wanted to, but regret not doing. But your point stands.
For every other part I did not attempt/resort to dodgy excuses wherein the scripture was genuinely misused and taken out of context(aka not looking at the very next line after, or before)
@EternalWraith: Go
"Its getting there. The one world government still has to come, and its evident such a thing is just looming"
Agreed.
"The acting forces would be our free will, cause and effect, the angelic and demonic activity, God."
Either god chose to limit himself, which i'm assuming, or you're polytheist. Also our free will is pretty much cause and effect. When i think about it why is cause and effect there in the first place? God has made prophecies which you blindly believe in, he must know exactly how things will play out, since he's unlimited, except from the angelic and demonic activities, limitations which he himself created...
I would like to remind you of one of the first theories mentioned in this thread, Occam's razor.
"I do not know if the system is dynamic or static and mathematically balanced in every way. I also do not know the relation between all the factors, which is more predominate or what sort of balance exists."
You're afraid of not knowing when it comes to the creation of the universe but here it's fine? Explain.
As you should. As all decent people should. Yet taintedwisp/soulcarver only seem to get offended that someone doubts the existence of some magical man in the sky.
The Catholic organization Knights of Columbus has spent $15.8 million to deny marriage rights to lesbians and gays since 2005. How else could that money have been spent?
While I could care less about people who keep their beliefs to themselves, the religious right can go fuck itself. These people show absolutely no respect for others, and don't deserve any in return. If they want to dictate public policy and tell others how to live their lives based on archaic bronze-age beliefs, then they should get ready to have those beliefs be rightfully mocked & insulted.
I never denied this possible explanation. But again, you're not acknowledging the fact if there was no appendix, this problem would not exist in the first place.
That is not the point. There are plenty of ways for a designer to keep beneficial bacteria in reserve without having to hope that it gets trapped in some semi-rotting orifice and doesn't start causing problems.
The authors are also biased because this experiment invalidates their original hypothesis. If they don't know anything about the true function of the appendix, then their quotes on the subject are meaningless. It's the results you look at in a scientific study, even if they don't suggest causality. To say that the authors' speculation (which has already been proven wrong) supports your position is dishonest to say the least.
Again, not the point. The bowels are 20 feet long, and yet appendectomy remains one of the most common surgeries. Sure, you're going to get bowel obstruction, but this one tiny segment has caused way more grief for humans than it had a right to.
If the appendix wasn't a ticking timebomb, then surgeons wouldn't routinely remove it even during unrelated surgeries. This is a brute fact.
They do the same thing with wisdom teeth. Luckily I still have mine because they never gave me any trouble, but there are plenty of people for which this is not the case.
Humanity had god-awful hygiene for the vast majority (100k+ years) of its existence. Are you acknowledging then that appendicitis killed off way more than its fair share of people in ancient times? Wouldn't an omnipotent creator have accounted for this?
Where did I say appendicitis has nothing to do with diet? See, I can be pedantic too.
Ugh. You can't give me an article that you link as "increased risk of Crohn's disease following an appendectomy" when the article demonstrates that this is actually a myth. I realize that you may be on the defensive here, but there is no saving face from this and I didn't think that you would actually try to play it off like you meant to do it all along. It's not a big deal, I know you don't have time to read every giant article, but it looks a tad hypocritical when you accuse me of not reading.
As I already said, I don't deny that the appendix has important functions. My entire point is that these functions could be moved to another organ and avoid the problems of an inflamed appendix. Many animals don't have an appendix. Just like there are animals that are stronger than us, can see further than us, and have to intake much less food than we do. And that's because evolution does not create organisms to be "perfect". Cows don't have an appendix but a fully functional cecum, and that's because they still eat leaves like our ancestors used to. It is common knowledge that the appendix is a vestigial organ (this does not mean it has no functions).
Here's an interesting article that talks about the vestigiality of the human appendix and it's suboptimal design:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html
But I suppose you'll tell me how this link only serves to prove your point. It's the same way that you like to say that the more you learn about science, the stronger your faith becomes (an oxymoron). The problem with creationist agendas is two-fold:
1) Assume that a god exists.
2) Assume that everything is proof of god.
1) I used the words "intelligent designer", not god. The design of the appendix is not remotely intelligent and everyone here knows it.
2) It's an argument because this 8 mm. part of our 20 feet bowel is one of the most common causes for surgeries. 7% of people in the USA get a problem with this one small segment. Despite everything that recent studies are finding, you can't deny that this design where shit gets clogged so easily is sub-optimal. Think about it. It's a long finger-like tube. It is hard to clean it up even with a high fiber diet.
Yes we can totally claim that. Sure, it's less than optimal to live with a removed appendix, but the appendix does not have essential functions necessary to our survival....as has been demonstrated by literally thousands of people. Are you really comparing smoking to appendectomy?
...you just gave me an entire spiel on the appendix's functions when I explicitly told you that I never denied that they exist. Who is strawmanning?
Give it a rest already. You should be more humble after totally failing to read your own article on Crohn's disease & appendectomy.
No. Just no. You asked for the proof that he was arrested: "I’d appreciate it if you’d provide what you consider to be reliable documentation for this."
I gave it to you in the form of his arrest record:
"Well here's the actual records from a google search:
http://byulaw.blogspot.com/2005/09/joseph-smiths-arrest-records-found.html"
I picked that site because it had the cleanest picture. Just because I don't want to get into a debate about dubious, unfalsifiable history does not mean I'm "ignoring" anything. I realize that there is probably no way I'll be able to convince you that Joseph Smith was a fraud, you can google that stuff for yourself or watch the south park episode. A picture of his arrest record is enough for me, but not for you.
You said "Appendicitis is brought on by poor hygienic practices as a result of the appendix attempting to remove toxins from the body."
This is wrong, appendicitis is brought on by obstruction or infection. The creation of toxins is a symptom. So you backpedal and say "An obstruction caused by improper hygienic practices". You then tell me how the appendix can remove toxins, when everybody knows that the entire problem with the appendix is that bacteria gets trapped in there too easily, which creates pus and eventually releases toxins. Saying that the appendix removes toxins is like saying that Hitler killed a few bad guys back in his day.
I've simply tried to demonstrate the correct etiology of appendicitis. I know that religious people love appealing to authority, but as far as I'm concerned, there is no reason you should be considered as one. So you have Crohn's disease and read many articles. Well I have headaches and I've read many articles on headaches; that still doesn't make me an authority on headaches.
Yeah, but... this isn't an answer to the question. And, you're missing the point of Eiviyn's argument.
You: God exists.
Someone else: Why?
You: Because there needs to be an unmoved mover, among other reasons.
Someone else: Ok, so what you're saying is basically this:
"We exist > we were created by our planet. Our planet exists > it was created by the universe. The universe exists > it was created by God. God wasn't created by anything, it always existed."
You: Basically, yes.
Someone else: Alright. Then why bring God into it? Why not say the following:
"We exist > we were created by our planet. Our planet exists > it was created by the universe. The universe exists. The Universe wasn't created by anything, it always existed."
You don't need God at all to follow this logic. It just adds an unneeded step of 'was created by' to the ladder.
You: No, God is the unmoved mover. Belief that the universe wasn't created by God is stupid.
Or: you run out of arguments and return to 'because it just is'. The point is that there IS no answer to this argument. What you're doing in your above post is saying stuff like "it's obvious God exists so we have reason to believe in him", but that's an entirely different thing altogether. Eiviyn is asking HOW you know that God is per definition the last step in the 'was created by' ladder. You cannot know this. You can believe so, certainly, but you have no argument to disprove the statement "God himself was created by something". It's not about what is obvious or what is needed, it's about the fact that your argument is "everything needs a creator, so too does the universe; only God doesn't" is countered by the argument "so how do you know that God is an exception to the 'everything needs a creator' rule?".
never mind. The guy Michael Rood has been part of many false prophecy. Better be careful next time.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
"Creationists never answer this question. They always dodge."
He's indescribable. Okay. Why then do you insist on giving him attributes? Are you admitting then that you make these attributes up?
Yeah okay. Science disagrees.
I never proposed any of those things.
I'll remind you, since you forgot; "If god doesn't need a cause, then why can't the universe/multiverse/whateververse have that attribute?"
I've still not had an answer to this question from you. Just more dodges.
Nah, that's not it. People think prayer helps.
Prayer has not once in recorded history been used to successfully heal an amputee.
Why? Because that's one of the few things that your body can't self-heal.
Cancer can go into remission, illnesses can fade, and nothing fails like prayer.
Funny how he stopped performing miracles since the invention of video and audio recording devices though, isn't it?
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is God able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is God both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is God neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
Human compassion and solidarity, perhaps? Doing good things without having to believe you're going to get some celestial reward, perhaps? Generally not being selfish, maybe?
Just like people who claim to have been abducted by aliens, this is completely worthless without verifiable proof.
I only believe in things that are demonstrable. The rest, I admit that I don't know rather than lie and pretend I do.
@Mozared: Go
And this is why I feel it is pointless to argue religion with a religious person.
Doesn't matter if they run out of arguments, they'll just resort to But maybe or It's that way because the bible says so arguments.
EternalWraith:
He would, He would. Its a trap to assume God is waiting for the slightest opportunity to cast us into a `hell` or torment us.
In what way is it a trap? God hasn't done the slightest shit to even make me remotely believe in him, so I could just take it as he doesn't like me, I mean, it makes absolutely no sense for him to stay disguised, if he is so caring about us, why doesn't he just save us all?
Such an attitude leads to despair and should not be entertained.
What attitude? That I don't believe there's an invisible man up in the sky waiting for me in a majestic kingdom?
Again, he hasn't done anything to make himself seem real, and 'such attitude' hasn't lead me into despair, but rather I feel happy when looking at christians/muslims (..etc) who instead waste their time protesting about gay/lesbian marriage. Wasn't God a loving and forgiving person? Well, why doesn't he ''allow'' gays to marry, and more importantly why does he accept such behavior?
ll it takes is the slightest attitude of repentance and change of heart for a person to save him/herself. I dont think anyone is going to get intentionally screwed at the end of their lives. Every person bears some responsibility for their actions and inner most decisions.
Well, obviously, he gave us free will, but then again he's the almighty God who's supposed to have his finger in everything, or isn't he as powerful as you say?
We have our conscious that acts as one means of warning , then we have knowledge, and all sorts of persuasive and true forces that can lead us on the right track. Who better to judge that , than God?.
I don't know, Santa seems pretty good at predicting when children have been bad.
No, but seriously, I still don't see the logic in this.. He's the almighty God with unlimited power and he wants to save us, yet he doesn't spend any energy at all to appear to us as our God.
But instead he just sits quietly, looks down on us and takes bets on who's gonna die and get to heaven first.
The whispers that tell us God is evil, cruel, and is wanting to kill/destroy and damn us. Where do they come from?
Isn't the bible 'God's word'? Well, it's estimated he killed about 2.5 million people, he tells you to rape the virgin daugthers of your enemy and enslave people, you can apparently sell your daughter as a (sex?) slave and you should kill people that works on the sabbath? I sense hypocrisy, unless the Devil wrote the bible, which is funny because then you're obeying the Devil's words.
If you're supposed to heed God's word, why doesn't anyone kill the gays instead of just protesting in the streets?
We`re not talking `Dungeons and Dragons` definition of Sorceress here(Throwing fireballs?)... Occult practices, witchcraft, fortune telling, etc. No different than modern day occult. Not that I believe they have any power in their efforts, but they obviously are deluded in thinking so.
Wait... Waaaaaiiiit... ??? Really?
You say they're deluded because they believe in witchcraft and fortune telling, yet you're sitting here expressing there's a magical mr.nice guy up in the sky?
The human body is extremely resilient and has many fail-safes.
Isn't evolution wonderful? <3
Receive Jesus Christ into your heart and He will open your eyes, and refresh you.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
That depends. Not everybody can be 'converted', but it speaks to your own skills of logic and reason and general thinking as well. If you're so sure about your position, you should be able to propagate it in such a way that it makes sense, and make at least some sway from religion. Which is kind of what I'm 'attempting' to do with what I said about EW's verificationism earlier - if I can get him to realize and accept thinking errors I think he makes, I can spur him into thinking further about religion and its position in his life. If one would genuinely think that everybody religious is already 'beyond saving' because you think they believe in something impossible, he would not only be as close minded as the religious people he calls out, but he'd also encounter some serious ethical problems in his life.
If it wasn't for the internet I'd still be religious. Unfortunately, when someone changes his mind, it is never IN the thread itself. It's always afterwards when all the absurdities & inconsistencies start to gnaw at your subconscious.
@Gradius12: Go
True. There's a word for this 'phenomenon' in French I think. I forgot what it was, but it describes that situation where someone says something to you, you give a lame response and then figure out an awesome comeback two hours later when you're thinking the situation through. Even if you never really see the results though, getting people to think and even just defend their viewpoints beyond "ur stupid" is a skill by itself.
@Mozared: Go
"Espirit d'escalier" literally "The wit of the staircase".
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Make Allah the Permanent Resident in the mansion of your heart.
One of the major points I'm trying to illustrate is diet plays a significant role in the prevention of appendicitis. Certainly isn't foolproof, but few things are. The particular diet that is shown to be most effective is one that is largely vegetarian/vegan with limited quantities of grains, dairy and meat. In some cases, complete departure from these food groups is recommended. When you go back to this earlier time period, this is precisely the kind of diet they maintained.
First, I'm not pointing to the Fall of Adam or original sin. I'm pointing to our individual actions and their consequences. Let's remove God from this problem. If 50-100 years from now we prove that humans maintain optimum health through a vegetarian/vegan diet, we'd look back at the majority of the growing illnesses/disease present today and facepalm. This would have nothing to do with God and everything to do with lack of information or sufficient scientific evidence. What many religions suggest is that God (or whomever they worship) already told us this and we're ignoring it.
Second, the word of wisdom (which you are referring to) is the Mormon version of this. It is actually very specific and "hot drinks" refers to coffee and (some) teas. Both contain caffeine, an addictive and harmful substance. Coca-cola has caffeine and is a destructive mix of chemicals. Not surprising why we don't want these in our bodies.
Third, omnipotence is power over everything. I don't agree that you have to give "crystal clear" instructions in order to be omnipotent. Mormons believe that God is intentionally obscure to prevent interference with our ability to choose. The path you describe is precisely that of Lucifer's (not an insult). He wanted everyone to know exactly what they needed to do and he was going to make sure everyone succeeded. In doing this, he deprived us of the ability to choose as you would a slave. This agency is the most important part of the process we experience on Earth. We can't exercise faith if God is so provably obvious that we fear NOT to follow him. I fully agree that this makes the science vs religion argument rather dubious, but I've never suggested otherwise. This is why I find attempting to "prove" religion pointless because to do so is contrary to what religion is.
To me, the benevolence of God is in his willingness to let us choose for ourselves, even though we may choose wrong and reject him. He then sacrificed his son, Jesus Christ, through the atonement to shift the burden of sin such that we could repent. Had this not happened, we would all be damned as we could not wipe away our sins through repentance. By allowing us to choose, it opens up consequences that God would not want us to suffer, but does not prevent us from suffering. Appendicitis is something I truly believe is largely avoidable and self-inflicted.
This doesn't mean much to someone who doesn't believe in God, but I feel it is selfish to believe that if God were truly benevolent, he'd never let us suffer or sin. You see how important independence is to many in the world today. Much like a parent coddles a child, God would "spoil" us if he made our life sunshine and rainbows. How can we be truly "good" when we've never been tempted with "evil?" These definitions are up for debate, but the idea is that through contrast, our choices gain a substantive weight. We saw both and chose A over B. In this case, we're choosing the delight of harmful foods over the comfort of a healthy body; the problem being we're not quite making this connection.
It was deGrasse who first made this point, but this is just the nature of humans. Everyone recognizes beauty differently. There are those who DO consider tarantulas beautiful, and snakes, and rats. I think it's unfair to say that this is limited to religion though. If you weren't religious, not much changes: "Isn't that beautiful?" vs "OMG KILL IT WITH FIRE!" The difference being that one incorporates God.
Your point about the earthquake has less to do with religion and more to do with the fickleness of people. We always try to blame something because it's hard to accept what is beyond our control. If we can blame someone or something, we can act on that. There is a reason why "Who did this!?" is commonly heard when someone rushes to an injured/dying loved one. They are trying to place blame. Alternatively, some place blame as a way of avoiding accountability. If you blame someone else, it can't be your fault and you don't have to feel bad about it. There are also those who try to take the blame for everything as a way of punishing themselves. This delves into psychology, but there is a great deal of discussion on this you can find.
I disagree on both points. The only reason we don't subsist on a diet of plants is because we have chosen not to. This is where I point to for our lack of understanding. We're led to believe that eating lots of meat, dairy and grains is acceptable and preferable. Evidence is beginning to show that we are healthier when we eat primarily as herbivores and occasionally as omnivores. Just because we CAN eat these foods doesn't mean we should always eat them. Many religions support this and not without respectable results. I'd encourage you to look up the average health of Mormons and 7th Day Adventists. Both promote a semi-vegetarian/vegan lifestyle, but Mormons tend to be less strict about following it.
Because of this, I disagree with the idea that a medical student could improve the body by simply cutting things out. If our diet is a major cause of appendicitis and related factors, then removing it doesn't make sense. Especially if we've already identified that it was used for storing bacteria to digest plants, something many suggest we should be doing more of. This is too similar to liposuction, gastric bypass or the new gastric imbrication. Rather than address the root problem (usually diet), we begin to physically alter the body to compensate.
You can't make the statement that we "know exactly what appendixes are for" when there are scientists that disagree with you. Everyone accepts that the heart pumps blood through the body. Not everyone accepts that the appendix is useless and should therefore be removed. What they DO accept is that, as of yet, we haven't successfully linked negative consequences to its removal. I've already pointed out that it might play a role in the development of immune systems in infants. Gradius asked why it doesn't shrink when we're done with it, and while I disagreed, it still is a better solution than preventing its formation entirely.
The plantaris muscle isn't useless. It still provides minor functions in the body. It seems like you're viewing anything that isn't mandatory or largely important to our body as "useless." The appendix, tonsils, coccyx and plantaris muscle have each been associated with minor to potentially major functions of the body. Just because we can get by without them (to some degree) doesn't make them useless.
I don't agree with your classifications. I think each example only fits into "could safely be removed."
Science isn't as self-checking as we would hope. Science rarely bothers to check itself unless considerable opposite or criticism is raised. Even then, it often rejects and ignores this opposition/criticism unless it is from a source close to the originating idea. Right now, most doctors outside of nutritional health believe diet plays a minor role in most diseases and that medicine is the best answer. It has reached the point that we are creating new diseases as we go (obesity). Nutritionists are pushing the idea that diet is a major part of disease management and prevention. They are even putting forth significant evidence to support it but are being largely ignored.
Sure, errors can be corrected, but sometimes it can take so long that considerable damage is done. I believe that the points you are supporting reflect this. Religious or not, I don't support the idea that removing parts of the body make it better. If this were the case, the majority of humans would suffer similar and consistent issues until these parts were removed.
Right now you're talking about less than 10% of the human population. Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of human death in the world. These and cancer account for close to half of all deaths in the United States. A great deal of these issues are being linked to man-made problems, diet being a major contender. These percentages are continuing to grow.
I think it is a mistake to conclude that the appendix is a major liability when we're doing a much better job killing ourselves. Considering how many of these issues are in areas close or related to the appendix, I don't think we should isolate it from the idea that appendicitis, also, could partly be our fault.
And I agreed with this point, but you included it in a list of body parts you considered useless and/or harmful to the body. The coccyx doesn't fit either description. It also isn't really a relic considering we can have tails during the embryonic stage of human development which later turns into the attachment point for muscles/ligaments/tendons. I'd consider the plantaris muscle more of a relic than the coccyx. They ARE both vestigial, though.
There is an important distinction between what I am saying and invoking god of the gaps. I am not using the appendix to prove God exists, I'm not suggesting that our lack of understanding means God exists and I'm not saying "Goddidit." I'm stating that regardless of God's existence, the appendix is not as readily understood as you claim it to be. I agree we have a decent understanding of how human biology works, but not so much what affects it. This is evident by the fact that we don't understand how to handle many diseases, cancers, infections and their increasing prevalence.
"Established medical consensus" is a poor word to use here as there are those within this "consensus" who mirror my sentiments. It doesn't matter how you put it, I will continue to disagree because I find the idea that removing parts from the body as anything but beneficial when the parts you routinely point to are not as clear-cut or "wrong" as you suggest.