Why would God create a flawed creation? (2)

[Archaeopteryx]

And why are our claims a concern to you if you are so convinced in your mind about your atheistic beliefs?

One reason I am concerned is because, all too often, theists claim that I'm unreasonable for not sharing their theological commitments. When someone insists that I should believe as they do, am I not justified in asking "on what basis?" This then leads to a consideration of reasons for belief (i.e., arguments/evidence). Another reason relates to the practical consequences of particular belief systems. In my view, policy decisions should be made in light of well-considered arguments and evidence, not what the religious say their God demands.

Why is there a need to accuse us and our faith in God? Don't try to push the blame to us now when it is people like you who see a need to oppose our faith, even when we have done no personal harm or injury to you. Furthermore, don't attempt to label us with arrogance when we are but responding to your persistent attempt to discredit our God.

And I'm responding to your persistent claims regarding God's nature, his personality and his intentions. In what way is that arrogant? You're making claims and I'm asking you to support them. How is that arrogant?

If you have a genuine interest to learn the truth, that would have been a different matter.

Why are you assuming that I don’t want to know the truth? If there is a God, I want to know about it. I'm just not convinced by the ramshackle case the religious have put forward to support their claims.

But it is apparent that there are some of you who have no other idea in mind but to come here to slander our God and accuse us of this and that. To say the least, that is being a busybody (since our faith does no harm to any atheists).

That isn't entirely true. Religious beliefs can shape actions that are harmful, not just to atheists, but to people generally. As an example, belief in the effectiveness of faith healing might lead some parents to avoid seeking medical treatment for their children, which is detrimental to their health.

To say the worst, that is challenging God Himself in the most preposterous and arrogant manner.

No more arrogant than claiming to speak for God.

 

[Inkfingers]

That's ignoring the point. A bomb is perfectly designed if it can meet its purpose.

A bomb that isn't indefinitely reliable isn't perfect.

 

[FireDragon76]

If you drop the perfection label, then it is easier to defend for sure... however if he still has the labels of omniscient and omnipotent, he'd still be evil for creating the universe that we see.

Having such a nihilistic outlook on life is hardly a sign of mental health, if you believe a Creator would have to be evil for creating such a universe, you make a necessary judgment on the universe in the process. Do you really feel life is so horrible? I don't. Yes, it is unpleasant at times but that is not all life is.

That isn't entirely true. Religious beliefs can shape actions that are harmful, not just to atheists, but to people generally. As an example, belief in the effectiveness of faith healing might lead some parents to avoid seeking medical treatment for their children, which is detrimental to their health.

And yet I bet you look at the statistics, those people are probably just as healthy as everyone else, because elements of their religious beliefs discourage them from engaging in physically harmful activities, such as drinking or smoking. You can't judge a faith by looking at one belief in isolation.

FWIW, mainstream Christians don't discourage doctors visits. In fact the book of Ecclessiasticus, a piece of literature from the Second Temple Jewish period, honors doctors (Sirach 38:1-2), and a doctor has always been second to a rabbi in the Jewish community in terms of prestige. The early church had two saints, Damian and Cosmas, who were physicians that treated the poor, and they are still honored today in many churches.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And yet I bet you look at the statistics, those people are probably just as healthy as everyone else, because elements of their religious beliefs discourage them from engaging in physically harmful activities, such as drinking or smoking. You can't judge a faith by looking at one belief in isolation.

It's interesting that you should mention statistics, as I was just reading this over on Jerry Coyne's blog:

That faith-based tenet has resulted in dozens of adult and child deaths, some of them horribly gruesome. Read The Albatross (available in fine bookstores everywhere or by mail after May 19) to learn more, but you can see a precis in the “Controversy” section of Wikipedia’s article about the church. CHILD (Children’s Healthcare Is a Legal Duty), a great organization, summarizes the church’s sad history:

The main faith-healing sect in Idaho with such beliefs is the Followers of Christ. Child mortality among them appears to be extremely elevated. By recent count there are 208 children under the age of 18 who are buried in Peaceful Valley Cemetery, one of several used by the Idaho Followers of Christ. There are a total of 604 graves in that cemetery. Nearly 35% of them are of children who died before age 18 and stillbirths. In contrast, Idaho Vital Statistics data show that during the years 2002-2011 only 3.37% of deaths statewide are of minor children or stillbirths. 35% vs 3.37% — one doesn’t have to do much math to see that there’s a huge difference. In addition, the leading cause of death among Idaho children older than one year is accidents. If we had a way to separate out disease-related mortality from accidental deaths, child mortality in the Followers of Christ would look even astronomically higher.​

Perry, it turns out, is opposing proposed Idaho legislation that will get rid of the state’s present religious exemptions for children’s health care. As I’ve noted before, forty-three of the fifty US states confer some type of civil or criminal immunity on parents who injure their children by withholding medical care on religious grounds. But that immunity doesn’t hold if you injure your child by withholding medical care for nonreligious reasons, so it’s a privileging of religion that is dangerous to children.

FWIW, mainstream Christians don't discourage doctors visits. In fact the book of Ecclessiasticus, a piece of literature from the Second Temple Jewish period, honors doctors (Sirach 38:1-2), and a doctor has always been second to a rabbi in the Jewish community in terms of prestige. The early church had two saints, Damian and Cosmas, who were physicians that treated the poor, and they are still honored today in many churches.

Oh well, so long as mainstream Christians aren't discouraging people from receiving medical assistance I suppose we needn't worry? By the way, how are you defining "mainstream" here?

 

[FireDragon76]

Oh well, so long as mainstream Christians aren't discouraging people from receiving medical assistance I suppose we needn't worry? By the way, how are you defining "mainstream" here?

Orthodox Christians; those adhering to the Nicene Creed. That accounts for the vast majority of the worlds self-described Christians.

I've known several Christian Scientists, they have faith healing as part of their beliefs and they didn't seem to be especially unhealthy people. Perhaps some Idaho cult is an exception, but one you can hardly draw broad conclusions about a single religious tennet. Perhaps poverty or other factors were confounding the observations.

Unnecessary medical intervention, on the other hand, can do a great deal of harm and give little benefit. I was misdiagnosed with a brain tumor 4 years ago, was subject to CT scans and a lumbar puncture that had serious complications. I now live with chronic back pain. Just because you refuse to go to a doctor and put your faith in a "higher power" doesn't mean you are an unhealthy person, it may mean in your experience health is not created by orthodox medicine. I now try to go to the doctor as little as possible, even though I continue to have health problems, I'm just aware, despite the brainwashing, that there is more to health than what some guy in a white coat can do for you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Orthodox Christians; those adhering to the Nicene Creed. That accounts for the vast majority of the worlds self-described Christians.

Bear in mind what you noted earlier about Christianity not being a monolithic entity.

I've known several Christian Scientists, they have faith healing as part of their beliefs and they didn't seem to be especially unhealthy people. Perhaps some Idaho cult is an exception, but one you can hardly draw broad conclusions about a single religious tennet. Perhaps poverty or other factors were confounding the observations.

Unnecessary medical intervention, on the other hand, can do a great deal of harm and give little benefit. I was misdiagnosed with a brain tumor 4 years ago, was subject to CT scans and a lumbar puncture that had serious complications. I now live with chronic back pain. Just because you refuse to go to a doctor and put your faith in a "higher power" doesn't mean you are an unhealthy person, it may mean in your experience health is not created by orthodox medicine.

We aren't talking about unnecessary medical interventions, but necessary ones that are withheld or opposed due to religious beliefs, and the potentially harmful sequelae of that.

 

[kristina411]

If you go to a museum and trash a Salvador Dali painting, are you responsible or is Salvador Dali (since he created the painting and allowed me to view it) responsible for the damage?

The answer is as simple as that. What was once perfect has been destroyed by men.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If you go to a museum and trash a Salvador Dali painting, are you responsible or is Salvador Dali (since he created the painting and allowed me to view it) responsible for the damage?

The answer is as simple as that. What was once perfect has been destroyed by men.

Have you established that our universe has a "Salvador Dali"?

 

[Messy]

Having such a nihilistic outlook on life is hardly a sign of mental health, if you believe a Creator would have to be evil for creating such a universe, you make a necessary judgment on the universe in the process. Do you really feel life is so horrible? I don't. Yes, it is unpleasant at times but that is not all life is.

If He is omnipotent in the way that regardless what people want or do He can just solve wars, give peace, heal everyone, stop disasters and He just doesn't want to I don't think it's strange that someone calls that evil. There's a god of this world who's evil, God isn't reigning here yet, only in the ones that let Him be Lord of their life.

 

[ananda]

If you go to a museum and trash a Salvador Dali painting, are you responsible or is Salvador Dali (since he created the painting and allowed me to view it) responsible for the damage?

The answer is as simple as that. What was once perfect has been destroyed by men.

Metaphor is incorrect ...

IMO it be more accurate to ask: If the creator of the painting made it so the paint can move around, etc. who is responsible if the painting no longer looks like it originally did?

 

[kristina411]

Have you established that our universe has a "Salvador Dali"?

When the Title of the post is "Why would God" I dont need to prove God so lets not bring apologetics in right? Right.

 

[kristina411]

Metaphor is incorrect ...

IMO it be more accurate to ask: If the creator of the painting made it so the paint can move around, etc. who is responsible if the painting no longer looks like it originally did?

No.

Man chose to disobey God when He gave us every opportunity to obey. We still do. Metaphor works perfectly. Just because it proves a point no one wants to acknowledge does not mean it is inaccurate.

 

[quatona]

A bomb that isn't indefinitely reliable isn't perfect.

But a creation that lends itself to corruption at the first opportunity is perfect?

 

[quatona]

If you go to a museum and trash a Salvador Dali painting, are you responsible or is Salvador Dali (since he created the painting and allowed me to view it) responsible for the damage?

The answer is as simple as that. What was once perfect has been destroyed by men.

Now, man allegedly has been essential part of the creation, so your analogy is apples and aeroplanes.
A better analogy would be: If two colours in Dali´s painting get into a chemical reaction that destroys the painting, who is resonsible for the damage?

 

[Inkfingers]

But a creation that lends itself to corruption at the first opportunity is perfect?

Sorry, I don't understand your point. Nowhere have I said that anything in the universe is now or has ever been perfect.

I have simply said that finite things by definition can never be perfect; so complaining about imperfection in the universe is like complaining about hydrogen in water.

 

[quatona]

Sorry, I don't understand your point. Nowhere have I said that anything in the universe is now or has ever been perfect.

My point refers to the claim - often brought forth by Christians - that God created the world perfectly.
But you may have a point, in that maybe that claim is not part of the doctrine of your particular denomination...

 

[Dave Ellis]

You attempt to accuse us of arrogance for telling you who God is based on His revelations to us, when it is you who are demanding us to give you an answer. How else do you propose that we answer your impolite accusations if you insist we should not "speak for God"?

The point you're missing is that you can't show that what you're passing on is actually the word of god. Atheists hear all kinds of people from all kinds of religions telling us about what their god wants, however what you claim about god will certainly contradict what another Christian tells me about god.

If there was one god passing on his revelations to Christians, then it would be fairly reasonable to assume that Christians could present a pretty unified, coherent message. Instead what we have is roughly 30,000 distinct denominations, and even within those denominations there will be disagreements. The quote "there's as many versions of Christianity as there are Christians" is truer than you might think.

The problem is though, there's no way to distinguish who actually has the real message, or to verify if there is any actual message from your god at all. Everyone seems to have their own idea of god, and amazingly, god seems to always agree with the personal opinions of whoever is speaking for him that day.

If you can not demonstrate you are getting your information from a god, then you can not honestly claim divine knowledge, or that you are speaking for that god.

To expect people to take your unjustified claims seriously when you can't demonstrate they're anything more than your imagination is indeed arrogant. As for atheists, it is not arrogant to ask questions when presented with a claim like that to see if there is actually any reason to believe the claim.

Besides, I have not seen any Christians exercising authority over others on here based on what they tell people about God.

1) The original claim was not about "on here", it was that Christians sometimes use "what god has to say" as a reason for exercising authority over others. We have seen that all over the place, for example the anti-gay marriage argument is almost entirely based on "god says homosexuality is a sin".

2) Even in regards to this website, there are some minor forms of authority in the form of censorship. For example, I can not say certain things because they are "blasphemous" or they would "offend your god". If I said those things, I would face a warning, or possible infraction, or even a ban.

So basically it sets up a situation where Christians are allowed to lay out their arguments however they wish, but we have to be very careful how we word responses, or not critique an idea too harshly or face having our posts edited or removed. It prevents honest debate.

Now, that being said I know this is a Christian based website, however on the other hand, if you have the truth then why would you fear honest debate? If I was arguing for a well evidenced and demonstrably true position, I'd welcome all the most critical arguments that anyone could come up with.

If my evidence is as strong as I believe it is, then I will be able to show why the critiques are wrong. If on the other hand there's a number of legitimate criticisms of my position which I can't legitimately address, then the only honest thing to do is to reconsider my own arguments.

The arrogant and dishonest thing to do is to silence or ignore the criticism as much as possible, while still claiming to have absolute truth. That unfortunately is what we see mostly from the religious groups, or individual Christians who either claim to speak for god, or want to tell us all about what god wants.

So yes, the position of "My religion is absolute truth despite all the evidence to the contrary" is a fundamentally arrogant one.

 

[Dave Ellis]

A bomb that isn't indefinitely reliable isn't perfect.

Not if it's intended to only last a certain amount of time. For example, say I was tasked with producing the next type of bomb for the Air Force.

In the specs, it needs x amount of explosive yield, it needs to have certain dimensions to fit in the bombers, it has to weigh a certain amount, and it needs to have an operational lifespan of 10 years, as long as I meet all of those requirements perfectly, and my company produces bombs that are totally free of defects, then it is a perfect design.

The fact it doesn't last 50 years is not a detriment, as that's not what it was intended to do.

 

[yesyoushould]

God didnt create a flawed creation. Creation was corrupted when sin entered the picture. Now all things deteriorate. The wages of sin is death but along the way there will be a lot of damage done.

I agree that none of us are forced to sin. Sin is a choice and death is the result.

 

[yesyoushould]

Right, so it isn't God's fault.

Yeah. Every person has a choice.