Evolution or Creationism?

[SteveB28]

Provide the statistics of how many "babies" Toxocara infects babies. Provide documentation for it eating the eyeballs of babies.

Why? So you can deflect the argument towards whether or not an 18 month old is a "baby"? Or perhaps you aren't satisfied with the numbers that are affected each year? I can see another contributor has already provided some data, so it should be unnecessary for me to duplicate it. You are going to have to look elsewhere to hide from the point.

You are using emotion rather than reason. We know that parasites, viruses and bacteria can be good and have good reason to exist. The fact that humans can be affected by nature is not evidence against God's goodness but simply God's world and how we learn to live in it. Pain is necessary to survive and so are some of the the parasites that help us. Good and evil exist.

Again you attempt to deflect. My motivation for bringing the argument is irrelevant - all that is required of you is to address it. If you can. We are quite aware that those things exist; you state the obvious. The question you run from is how you can call a being 'good' when it puts in place a 'plan' which will bring the fruit of children's eyes being eaten out, presumably knows that will be one of the outcomes and provides you with no clue whatsoever as to why it would put such a ghastly plan into operation?

Now, which rabbit hole will you choose for cover? 'God's mysterious ways'? The maintenance of free will? The 'fall' of mankind?

We await with anticipation.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are using emotion rather than reason. We know that parasites, viruses and bacteria can be good and have good reason to exist. The fact that humans can be affected by nature is not evidence against God's goodness but simply God's world and how we learn to live in it. Pain is necessary to survive and so are some of the the parasites that help us. Good and evil exist.

You're contradicting yourself again.

You clearly said previously that horrid organisms "were planned for" by this god you believe in.
Now, you seem to be implying again that it's merely some unfortunate side-effect.

You really need to decide what your position on the matter is.
And preferably before you reply again.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Such errant nonsense! Is it not possible for your God to 'set up' a world in which free will is preserved, but there is also an absence of suffering? Is heaven not free of suffering and evil? Do we have free will there? I'm betting your answer to both is 'yes', so, in the Christian mind at least, your God has already created a world in which free will is exercised and yet no pain or suffering exists!

Free will is a Christian doctrine. What the Bible says is we have freedom of choice. God wants us to choose life or death, sickness or health, poverty or prosperity. This is the choice that Moses gave the Hebrew Children in the desert. There are New Testament scriptures that talk about how Christians need to grow and mature. Also we are to be more God like. We are to put on the mind of God and we are to have His attitude. Jesus suffered for our sin, but He lived His life here on Earth as an Example for us to follow. So we are here to learn, grow and experience life. Even in Heaven we will continue to learn. Man like the Creator has the ability to be able to create. We can fix things to restore them and we have the ability to make repairs.

 

[SteveB28]

Free will is a Christian doctrine. What the Bible says is we have freedom of choice. God wants us to choose life or death, sickness or health, poverty or prosperity. This is the choice that Moses gave the Hebrew Children in the desert. There are New Testament scriptures that talk about how Christians need to grow and mature. Also we are to be more God like. We are to put on the mind of God and we are to have His attitude. Jesus suffered for our sin, but He lived His life here on Earth as an Example for us to follow. So we are here to learn, grow and experience life. Even in Heaven we will continue to learn. Man like the Creator has the ability to be able to create. We can fix things to restore them and we have the ability to make repairs.

If you've finished preaching.......?

You might care to answer the question. Is it not possible for your God to create a world, free of gratuitous suffering, while still maintaining free will?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is it not possible for your God to create a world, free of gratuitous suffering, while still maintaining free will?

Like He did in Genesis 1?

 

[joshua 1 9]

If you've finished preaching.......?

Are you going to keep trying to twist and misrepresent the truth?

You might care to answer the question. Is it not possible for your God to create a world, free of gratuitous suffering, while still maintaining free will?

Is it possible for God to make a rock he can not lift? Those are theological questions. I have taken some classes at the Bible college but I have never been to a school of theology. That would be a good question for you to ask one of those guys that has a Phd. God can not do anything contrary to His nature. He has to be true to Himself. So are you wanting to understand the nature of God? He tells us that: "my ways are not your ways". We are to have the Mind of Christ and the Divine thoughts of God. Still we are told: Romans 11:33-36 - "Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!" So God does not make everything known and not everything is searchable.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Like He did in Genesis 1?

What is the difference between the world God created in Genesis 1 and the restored world? When the New Jerusalem comes down from Heaven. rev21:2 "I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."

 

[AV1611VET]

What is the difference between the world God created in Genesis 1 and the restored world? When the New Jerusalem comes down from Heaven. rev21:2 "I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."

Good question.

I've wondered that myself.

I used to think God is going to create a New Earth, and we are going to go back to the time prior to the Fall.

Back to the First Dispensation.

But in Eternity Future, on the New Earth (and New Jerusalem), there will be no need of the sun.

Of course, Adam & Eve didn't need it either, but I still think the New Earth is going to be different from the Old Earth.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So..... the fall has nothing to do with horrible organisms?
Then there's no point in bringing that up.

The fall made the spiritual man the same as before, susceptible to death and disease.

So.... when homo sapiens first evolved.... they were somehow immune to all dangerous organisms? Or were only these two "chosen" humans immune?

In my opinion, Adam and Eve were not the first humans. They were the first Spiritual created humans. They were I assume immune to all dangerous organisms at least they would not have died.

Why couldn't you just have said this the first time when SteveB26 questioned you on it? Why did you say this instead:



And imply that it wasn't god's fault, but rather a side-effect?

Is a side effect of a design not still the result of the Designer? God's fault in only that He designed the universe the way it is and ultimately that means that HE was aware that the design would have negative effects to His creation but those things were necessary for reasons He felt were important.

It's still completely unclear to me why you think that when Homo Sapiens first evolved, they somehow were immune to dangerous organisms and harmful mutations?
What's your evidence for that claim?

I don't need any more evidence than what you supply for your position which is stories and maybe and could have been's.

It kind of smells like another ad hoc "explanation".

You should be well aware of that scent as we know you like to use those in many of your own arguments. The problem is this, you say that you only believe what can be shown by evidence and yet you don't have evidence for much of what you believe; I have the same problem but my position isn't one that requires evidence for every element in my position. I don't believe that there is only a physical world, so much of my position focuses on one central piece of evidence. That evidence is God's existence. You many feel that God doesn't exist due to parasites, viruses, and bacteria but those things are necessary in the universe that God created for good but they do do bad as well. Pain is necessary even when it can be bad.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And another way of expressing that is to say - " I have no idea why my God causes/allows so much cruelty and suffering to persist, but I have decided that it must be actually 'good', because it permits me to maintain the belief I have in this god's existence, even though I have no tangible evidence to support such a belief." There.

How much cruelty and suffering and is it through the natural occurrences or is it due to man's evil? There are two types of suffering and each has it own set of reasons. Where you make your mistake is in assuming that I only have a belief in God's existence. I have proof of His existence in my life. Now I can't share that evidence with you and so it is meaningless to you but to me it provides confirmation for much of what we find in our universe. It is consistent with Christian theology that we are not spared trials and tribulations in this world. The universe is designed so that man can make sense of it and declares the glory of God. That means that there must be a way for the universe to be comprehensible and unchanging. We could make sense of the universe if it were a chaotic mess of ever changing conditions. So the laws of physics make conditions that sometimes harms us. This is a necessary element in the design of the universe and a side effect is that it sometimes affects us negatively. This is true of most naturally occurring mayhem.

Thank you so much for telling me what and how I think - I don't know how I've survived for so long without your assistance! Now, in fact 'bad' and 'good' most certainly do exist within my world view - it's just that they don't depend upon the arbitrary dictates of an imaginary deity, the actions of whom cannot even be fathomed by those who believe it exists! My concept of good and bad is located at the intersection of two realities - my ability to empathise with those who are harmed or in pain and, as a contributing member of a cohesive society, the recognition of the consensus under which that group operates with respect to the care of others.

Do you really want me to go back and gather quotes from you that tell others all the time what they think? I don't have to go to far look at the quote just above: And another way of expressing that is to say - " I have no idea why my God causes/allows so much cruelty and suffering to persist, but I have decided that it must be actually 'good', because it permits me to maintain the belief I have in this god's existence, even though I have no tangible evidence to support such a belief."
You always hold a double standard. What you do is somehow acceptable but how dare anyone do it to you!

Your concept of good or bad is meaningless if it is only subjective. What if no one else empathizes with others who are suffering and harmed and in pain? There are members in a cohesive society that do that harm, give pain to others and who do not operate with respect and care of others so if you get it from society and society has these people in it too how do you explain yours?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Funny how you try to make this about SteveB26's moral compass.

Who's would it be about if not SteveB26's when discussing his moral indignation towards God?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The fall made the spiritual man the same as before, susceptible to death and disease.

Que?

So... first there was a homo sapiens that was susceptible to death and disease, and then there wasn't and then there was again?

Is that what you are saying?

As usual, I don't follow.

In my opinion, Adam and Eve were not the first humans. They were the first Spiritual created humans. They were I assume immune to all dangerous organisms at least they would not have died.

Where does that assumption and opinion come from?
On what is it based? What evidence do you have of this?
And are you saying that when homo sapiens evolved, it evolved some kind of immortality and immunity to just about everything?

Did god make them immune and immortal?
How? And was it just 2 people in a population of humans that had these traits?

Is a side effect of a design not still the result of the Designer?

A side effect is, by definition, unintended.

But anyhow, are you know saying that you wish to reformulate and state instead that this "designer" "designed" horrid organisms that eat eyeballs from the inside out ON PURPOSE?

God's fault in only that He designed the universe the way it is and ultimately that means that HE was aware that the design would have negative effects to His creation but those things were necessary for reasons He felt were important.

I already asked you this, but you didn't answer. I'll ask again.
What "good reason" could exist where it is a good thing that horrid organisms exist that eat babies alive?

And since you seem to say that this god intervened to "create the spiritual human" (whatever that is supposed to mean), why didn't he intervene to change the horrid organisms that cause horrible deformations and desease in defenseless, innocent babies?

Clearly he could have done that, since you think he intervened in other evolutionary paths, so he must have not done it on purpose. Clearly, he could if he wanted to.
But somehow, he felt it was important for innocent, defenseless babies to die horribly?

I don't need any more evidence than what you supply for your position which is stories and maybe and could have been's.

That's quite a statement.
So you feel like you are exempt from justifying your claims?

The problem is this, you say that you only believe what can be shown by evidence and yet you don't have evidence for much of what you believe;

Such as?

I have the same problem

Thanks for admitting that you believe things without evidence.
That was my point, yes.

but my position isn't one that requires evidence for every element in my position.

Indeed. In fact, your position actually REQUIRES you to believe it based on FAITH, by definition.

I don't believe that there is only a physical world, so much of my position focuses on one central piece of evidence. That evidence is God's existence.

God's existence is a claim. A claim that has no evidence. You're not making any sense here.

You many feel that God doesn't exist due to parasites, viruses, and bacteria

[

No, I never made such a claim.
The only thing I'm doing in this discussion is trying to find out what it is that you actually believe, because you seem to contradict yourself every other post.

but those things are necessary in the universe that God created for good but they do do bad as well. Pain is necessary even when it can be bad.

Why is it necessary for horrid organisms to exist that only serve to cause horrible death?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Prevalence of toxocariasis PLOS study from 2009:

CDC states at least 70 people per year are blinded in the US by toxocariasis, most of them children

Do you realize 450 children are killed by their parents every year by their own parents? Most physically beaten to death. Most of them under the age of five.
http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/npi/images/toxocariasis_infographic.jpg
More on the risk to children:

The pathology of OLM (the one that effects the eyes):[/QUOTE]
I don't see anything that says the eyes are eaten...it says: Larvae migrate to and invade the eyes, where they induce an eosinophilic inflammatory reaction. Did you perhaps like the sound of eating babies eyes for dramatic effect to promote emotional outrage perhaps?

Eosinophils can be both helpful or harmful. At one extreme, such as in the illness erythema toxicum, eosinophils have a transient and benign role. Also, during certain parasitic infections, eosinophils protect the host from the parasite by helping rid the body of the infection. At the other extreme, represented by conditions like Loeffler's disease and hypereosinophilic syndrome, eosinophils are linked with severe pathologic changes.

Just like in most cases there is a good side and a bad side. However, we realize that care with pets and promoting clean hands and keeping pet feces from children will help to prevent this from occurring.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Planned "adaption"?
What does that mean?
Random mutation? If yes, then we are back to square one.
Did he have control over the direction of evolution?

I believe yes He had control over the direction of evolution. I believe that He created life forms with the ability to adapt to their environment. I believe He put forth a system that minimized the harm that this system would produce.

It's a yes or no.
Yes: then he is responsible for horrible organisms
No: then he is not responsible for the development of humans.

What are horrible organisms? What "horrible" organism is there that does not have some good that is accomplished by its existence?
I believe that God has created a universe that He wished to show His existence. It then has to be able to be comprehended by us to do so. The laws of physics and the nature of the way He created while showing this also creates possible harm to us.

You are trying to have it both ways, but you can't. At least not while staying rational and intellectually honest.

This coming from someone who claims GA's actually represent evolution. Rationality is not something that your worldview produces. You can't have rationality unless free will exists. You can't have rationality unless intelligence comes from intelligence rather than mindless matter. You can't have rationality if you claim that we only have a physical brain that comes from matter alone. So to tell me that I can't be rational while claiming the brain and mind are the same makes your argument one that you can't rationally make but make due to the way you are hard wired to think.

No, you believe that.

I have experienced that.

Yes, yes... "god has a plan". "god works in mysterious ways"
And all these horrible things? Well, there MUST be a "loving and merciful" reason for it.... why? Well, because it HAS TO, otherwise it contradicts what I already believe.

What horrible things? Disease? Man made evil? Which because there is reason for both.

That's the vibe you are exhibiting here.

By your worldview, I can only think what I must think.

Eum....
In the word "morality", one already acknowledges the difference between well-being and suffering. Without that distinction as a premise, the word "morality" has no meaning.

How is well-being moral?

This is simply not true.

Ok, what makes something morally good or bad if we can only behave the way we are hard wired to behave?

So..... it wasn't planned for by your god?

You are contradicting yourself. Again.
You previously literally stated that your god DID plan for horrible parasites.
Now, you're saying that it's just something "that happens". Implying no reason, no intention, no person, no planning.

So, which is it?

He designed a universe with a system that harm could be produced by things that have a good reason.

As usual, I can't follow what your actual position is.

I think the problem doesn't rest with my position but your lack of understanding.

It seems you are again back to saying whatever you think supports your position at this time - no matter if you are contradicting whatever you said in a previous post.

How is it contradictory?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why? So you can deflect the argument towards whether or not an 18 month old is a "baby"? Or perhaps you aren't satisfied with the numbers that are affected each year? I can see another contributor has already provided some data, so it should be unnecessary for me to duplicate it. You are going to have to look elsewhere to hide from the point.

Addressed this with the other contributor.

Again you attempt to deflect. My motivation for bringing the argument is irrelevant - all that is required of you is to address it. If you can. We are quite aware that those things exist; you state the obvious. The question you run from is how you can call a being 'good' when it puts in place a 'plan' which will bring the fruit of children's eyes being eaten out, presumably knows that will be one of the outcomes and provides you with no clue whatsoever as to why it would put such a ghastly plan into operation?

We need to look at this as a whole. Are parasites as a whole only ghastly in the whole design of the earth. We know they are not. Just as we know there are side affects to medicines that we have developed to cure diseases. I doubt that chemotherapy can be said to be considered a good thing when experiencing it but it does good in the long run in many cases. I doubt that vaccinations are good when administered to babies and they don't see them as anything but ghastly but they do good in the long run. They have killed babies too, 10 deaths a year by the measles vaccination alone in the last ten years, none by measles I might add. There are parasites, viruses and bacteria that not only do harm but also do good. Mutations that cause some diseases are kept to a minimum by the back up error detection in our DNA. So on one hand the mutations allow life to adapt to environments which if they couldn't all would die and so would life on earth but they can cause problems but those problems don't outweigh the good that is produced by them. The fact that you want to paint this as all just ghastly and just designed to eat babies eyes out is just drama and emotion to promote a false image of the design of God's creation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You're contradicting yourself again.

You clearly said previously that horrid organisms "were planned for" by this god you believe in.
Now, you seem to be implying again that it's merely some unfortunate side-effect.

You really need to decide what your position on the matter is.
And preferably before you reply again.

Provide the quote where I specifically said that "horrid organisms were planned for". You are misrepresenting my position. If I had said that it is an unfortunate side-effect would you not have jumped right in and said that God had to know this side effect could happen and so he was the cause anyway? So I take the conclusion that you would have claimed and have shown why this is done. Now of course I can only use reason and logic in determining that although mutations which allow life to adapt to environments and live on to reproduce is a good thing and that in this good also bad can arise; so the good outweighs the bad. I can only use reason and logic in determining that the good parasites, viruses and bacteria that help life survive is a good thing but that bad can arise from them as well, so the good outweighs the bad. You however, can not rationally determine anything as your position is not determined by rationality but by the laws of physics working and the hard wiring of your brain so that rationality is an illusion as much as the self is.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I believe yes He had control over the direction of evolution. I believe that He created life forms with the ability to adapt to their environment. I believe He put forth a system that minimized the harm that this system would produce.

That makes no sense....
This system is exceptionally cruel.

It is entirely based on the harsh struggle of survival.
It's like a straight up arms race between species.

Antilopes just fast enough to outrun hungry lions.
Lions just fast enough to outrun antilopes to devour.

Micro-organisms that cause terrible suffering, etc.

It's actually a system of death.

What are horrible organisms? What "horrible" organism is there that does not have some good that is accomplished by its existence?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yersinia_pestis

What "good" is accomplished by the existance of this thing that outweighs the incredible harm it causes?

More then 100 million people have died from it.

I believe that God has created a universe that He wished to show His existence. It then has to be able to be comprehended by us to do so. The laws of physics and the nature of the way He created while showing this also creates possible harm to us

Funny. I'ld say that a universe that looks like that would rather be an argument against the existence of god(s).

Rationality is not something that your worldview produces. You can't have rationality unless free will exists.

Hmmm. Are you know saying that in my worldview, no free will exists?
Perhaps you should stop assuming what other people think and just ask them instead.

You can't have rationality unless intelligence comes from intelligence rather than mindless matter

That doesn't follow. At all.
When a cat decides not to jump straight down from a roof, but instead first jump unto a crate and only then to the ground, it is making a rational decision. It realises that jumping from the roof directly will cause physical harm, so it doesn't do that.

I'ld call that a rational decision.

Secondly, intelligence doesn't need to come from intelligence in order to have rationality. If we assume that rationality is a trait from intelligence, then it doesn't matter how intelligence arises. Then to have rationality, it just needs to exist by whatever means.

If X is a property of Y, then X exists if Y exists - no matter where Y comes from.

You're trying to slip in your a priori faith based beliefs.

You can't have rationality if you claim that we only have a physical brain that comes from matter alone.

Again, that makes no sense. It doesn't follow.
If rationality is a product of a working physical brain, then it doesn't matter where the brain comes from.

Again: If X is a property of Y, then X exists if Y exists - no matter where Y comes from.

Once more, you try to slip in your faith based beliefs.

So to tell me that I can't be rational while claiming the brain and mind are the same makes your argument one that you can't rationally make but make due to the way you are hard wired to think.

That's not at all what I said.
I merely stated that holding contradictory positions is not rational.
I didn't say anything about where rationality comes from, so I have no clue why you are rambling about that.

I suspect it's just another attempt to change the topic and derail.

I have experienced that.

Just like alien abductees "experienced" weird sexual experiments on board of a UFO.
Or so they believe.

What horrible things? Disease? Man made evil? Which because there is reason for both.

The topic of the point. Horrible organisms causing horrible deaths.

How is well-being moral?

Do you even read the quotes you reply to?
I said that in order for the word "morality" to have any meaning at all, one needs to acknowledge the difference between suffering and well-being.

Acknowledging this difference is a requirement for even understanding what morals are. A premise.

If well-being and suffering are understood as being the same thing, what does it mean to call something "immoral"?

Ok, what makes something morally good or bad if we can only behave the way we are hard wired to behave?

I never made such a claim. I see no need to defend claims I never made.
I don't agree at all that we are hard wired to behave in a certain way.

He designed a universe with a system that harm could be produced by things that have a good reason.

What good reason is there for cancer?
And since he intervened, in your belief, in the development of humans, why did he not intervene in the development of the black plague? What "good reason" exists for the black plague?

I think the problem doesn't rest with my position but your lack of understanding.

Perhaps. And I actually consider that option. Which is why I'm asking all these questions. But you're not making it any easier to understand.
In fact, you're only making it harder.

How is it contradictory?

First you implied that horrid organisms are an unintended side-effect of the system.
Then you claimed that the horrid organisms were planned for.
Then you claimed again that they are just a consequence of the system.
Then again you claim they are planned.

And so it continues.

 

[Zosimus]

First of all, pointing out that your argument is based on assumptions is not a straw man argument.

Not arguing that pain, or having a conscience, is a bad thing. Both have distinct natural advantages. I'm arguing instead that there is no evidence for an omnipotent, all-loving being and that the logical case for the existence of such is negated by the problem of evil (not the problem of pain, or the problem of conscience), despite apologetic-style handwaving about free will.

Second, there are multiple competing theories for the so-called "problem" of evil. One of the simplest explanations is that evil does not exist, per se. Just as darkness does not exist but rather is the absence of light, so too evil is just the absence of good.

Why is there unnecessary suffering? Why is the free-will of individuals such they can deliberately introduce suffering into the lives of others? What sort of all-loving and all-powerful being permits that?

What makes you think that suffering is unnecessary? Explain how free will can truly be free will when you place limits on what someone can do?

Are you arguing that he didn't?

Not I, but Mormons often quote D&C 93:29 "Intelligence...was not created or made, neither indeed can it be."

Seems like a limitation. What good is a limited god then?

What good is a limited SmartPhone? None at all. Yours has limits. I'll take it off your hands.

I have plenty of evidence that I have a physical body. I have no evidence for the existence of omnipotent world creating beings, or a "spirit" - whatever that may be.

This is a self-defeating argument.

 

[Zosimus]

I'ld rather say that pain is unpleasant.

Pain is, off course, a good thing to be able to experience.
But it is quite unpleasant to experience pain.
If you disagree with that, I'll be inclined to believe that you have some type of diagnosable psychological problem.

I don't like pain. I don't like going to work either. That doesn't mean that I avoid it.

It seems you are not aware that a lot of people on this forum believe exactly that.

Oh, I'm aware. Lots of people on this forum believe crazy things.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Que?

So... first there was a homo sapiens that was susceptible to death and disease, and then there wasn't and then there was again?

Is that what you are saying?

As usual, I don't follow.

Yes. Yes, you are not following.

Where does that assumption and opinion come from?
On what is it based? What evidence do you have of this?
And are you saying that when homo sapiens evolved, it evolved some kind of immortality and immunity to just about everything?

Did god make them immune and immortal?
How? And was it just 2 people in a population of humans that had these traits?

Were there humans prior to the findings of spiritual objects and practices in the fossil evidence?

A side effect is, by definition, unintended.

But anyhow, are you know saying that you wish to reformulate and state instead that this "designer" "designed" horrid organisms that eat eyeballs from the inside out ON PURPOSE?

I never claimed that God designed anything on to purposely harm us. His creation has the ability to harm us and He designed it the way it is for a purpose and that purpose outweighs the sometimes bad side effects that arise from the good He incorporated into the creation.

I already asked you this, but you didn't answer. I'll ask again.
What "good reason" could exist where it is a good thing that horrid organisms exist that eat babies alive?

Oh, now it is not only their eye balls but now it the whole baby! These horrid organisms of which you speak do good in the environment and a very very small percentage of them produce this in babies and small children. Mankind however outright physically beats their own children to death purposely in great numbers every year. There is no good in that, I don't see one benefit in that do you? Why if evolution is driven by the need to make sure our genes are going to be reproduced and carried on in the future does mankind kill their own children and in such great numbers? Since we behave in only the way we are hard wired from prior events and the laws of physics it seems to be contradictory to your position. You won't look at your own position honestly though right?

And since you seem to say that this god intervened to "create the spiritual human" (whatever that is supposed to mean), why didn't he intervene to change the horrid organisms that cause horrible deformations and desease in defenseless, innocent babies?

What horrid organisms? Where in Christian theology does God say we will not have trials and tribulations in the natural world? In fact, God says we will.

Clearly he could have done that, since you think he intervened in other evolutionary paths, so he must have not done it on purpose. Clearly, he could if he wanted to.
But somehow, he felt it was important for innocent, defenseless babies to die horribly?

In your position to die is just the way it is. Evolution kills the weak and innocent all the time. So why all the outrage if you really don't believe that God exists and that you truly believe that evolution is all there is in explaining life and death?

That's quite a statement.
So you feel like you are exempt from justifying your claims?

I am saying that I can justify mine as well as you do yours.

Such as?

All those things that you like to say "I don't know" about. Remember, it is intellectually honest to say you don't know, but of course, I don't know means there is no evidence.

Thanks for admitting that you believe things without evidence.
That was my point, yes.

So do you, now what?

Indeed. In fact, your position actually REQUIRES you to believe it based on FAITH, by definition.

that is a false assumption by many atheists.

God's existence is a claim. A claim that has no evidence. You're not making any sense here.

There is evidence you just deny it.

No, I never made such a claim.

Ok.

The only thing I'm doing in this discussion is trying to find out what it is that you actually believe, because you seem to contradict yourself every other post.

You haven't shown that I have contradicted myself, you have made straw men of my position that contradicts what you think I am saying.

Why is it necessary for horrid organisms to exist that only serve to cause horrible death?

What horrid organisms which only serve to cause horrible death?