What is your justification for believing in a God?

[deluxe]

Nice vids Moontanman - saw them a while ago and good to rewatch. Deluxe you really should try to watch them all - and not just dip in to the first one.

Why do you think they are correct?

[Moontanman]

Why do you think they are correct?

 

If you had taken the time to actually watch the entire series with a critical mind you would have seen Mr. Ra explain in detail why the ideas he represents are indeed true not to mention the details why the creation myth cannot possibly be real. To me the most important reason is that science has indeed followed the religious agenda and found no support for it what so ever.

 

Naturalistic causes on the other hand have an overwhelming amount of observable repeatable evidence to support them, and this data is not just accepted but is consistently tested and found to be demonstrably true, over and over, even today the details are being tested and found to be true and if not the the new data is added to what we know. Religion adds no new data to humanity, in fact it retards the growth of knowledge by arresting progress.

 

I think it's quite telling that not only are their no faith healers in emergency rooms (if you or a loved on is inured or sick do you want a faith healer or a doctor) but that religious writing, the word of god, has not even added something simple like basic pain relief to help stop suffering to man kinds store of knowledge, not even simple hygiene.

 

Science, on the other hand using the methodology of science has not only added to our total supply of knowledge but has created medicines that don't just relieve pain and suffering, science has eradicated disease, small pox is a good example, while creationism does nothing but exclaim loudly science is wrong, usually telling quite profound lies in the process.

 

Science is what allows us to live lives of relative health and plenty, our entire first world culture is based in science, do you really want to go back to the standard of living of 1000 years ago? Watch the videos, then come back with specific questions and I'll do my best to answer them... or it might be because I'm a member of the scientific establishments conspiracy and if i don't support them they will come to my house and shoot me....

[Realitycheck]

Ahh, Mr. Ra, I understand your repulsion. Is Ra his real last name? I mean, cmon. How repulsive can you get? Growing your hair long, looking like a Jesus pretender wannabe, naming himself after a false Eqyptian god, positioning himself as a know-it-all revelator? Really, just how repulsive can you get? Who would give such a walking freakshow the time of day? Savior in his own mind? For the uninformed, the antichrist is supposed to mimic Jesus, so why would you expect any Christian to give him the time of day if he names himself Ra? FYI, for future reference, if you really want to convince somebody in the future, i would suggest using the stuffy professor type (no offence intended), complete with pocket protector. Acting jobs don't inherently bestow lots of credibility, nor sincerity either, but I completely understand how some people revel in mocking figureheads of old who never came to be, even if it's just for a claim to fame. Until I see somebody part waters or walk on it, they all kind of look the same, with the exception that Jesus was most likely a lot more sincere. After all, Jesus himself never necessarily lied about his feats, or "miracles". I just have issues with his followers sprucing up his story... just like the Jews. But what can I say? In this day and age, carnival sideshows are kind of the norm.

[Moontanman]

Ahh, Mr. Ra, I understand your repulsion. Is Ra his real last name? I mean, cmon. How repulsive can you get? Growing your hair long, looking like a Jesus pretender wannabe, naming himself after a false Eqyptian god, positioning himself as a know-it-all revelator? Really, just how repulsive can you get? Who would give such a walking freakshow the time of day? Savior in his own mind? For the uninformed, the antichrist is supposed to mimic Jesus, so why would you expect any Christian to give him the time of day if he names himself Ra? FYI, for future reference, if you really want to convince somebody in the future, i would suggest using the stuffy professor type (no offence intended), complete with pocket protector. Acting jobs don't inherently bestow lots of credibility, nor sincerity either, but I completely understand how some people revel in mocking figureheads of old who never came to be, even if it's just for a claim to fame. Until I see somebody part waters or walk on it, they all kind of look the same, with the exception that Jesus was most likely a lot more sincere. After all, Jesus himself never necessarily lied about his feats, or "miracles". I just have issues with his followers sprucing up his story... just like the Jews. But what can I say? In this day and age, carnival sideshows are kind of the norm.

 

 

Actually AronRa is really his name and it's Nordic but hey who's counting...

[Appolinaria]

is the presence of science & the absence of a scientifically proven god, ironically proof of his existence?

What if there are laws of the universe that supersede the ones we have established in the portion of it we are able to observe? Things beyond our comprehension. How do we know the laws we have established are the truth?

If god says to do something against our will, against science, against the bible... do we do it just because he says so? Drop all we know to serve god? Is life about understanding OR submitting to god, despite all of our knowledge. Is it about showing complete devotion to god, despite the fact that we may be as knowledgeable, just because he is omnipotent? Will we be bestowed with his gifts only when we show complete submission- even if his directions go against science?

Take the story of Adam & Eve, God instructed them NOT to eat the apple, even though it appealed to their curiosity and desire for knowledge. Maybe it would make them more god-like & intelligent, but God told them NOT to do so, which was the real test. It doesn't matter, the apple may hold truths, but God said no... which is the point. If God told us not to eat a rotten apple, we would understand why, because it wouldn't make sense. So God asking us to do something that DOESN'T make sense is the only way to test our true faith in his word. Maybe we must first prove our devotion before we can attain true wisdom. If god were to establish his power over a less intelligent race who understood nothing about their surroundings, they would willingly forfeit to his faith, because they would have no understanding of him, he would seem like a powerful magician of sorts.... creating & destroying things, manipulating the laws around him... but they would have no understanding of it at all. however, we as humans, understand the laws and how to manipulate them too. there is no need for god. is this purposeful? to see if we will still have faith in god even when we no longer need an omnipotent force to explain why things are the way they are? are we being tested?

We're set up in this world, with observable laws, given the Bible, given all of this knowledge that makes us think we understand it all. But if God said it was all a bunch of bullshit, would you accept that, just because he is powerful over us? So many things can be proven with science, is that the point of it existing? So we focus so much on our own attainment of knowledge that we get blinded & can't see the real truth, that we are beneath god?

what about the story of Satan.. he was punished for his pride.

"Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor.

"I TIMOTHY 3:6 Not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil."

LUKE 4:5 Then the devil, taking him up on a high mountain, showed him all the kingdoms of the worldin a moment of time. 6 And the devil said to him, "All this authority I will give you, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish."

blah blah blah numerous, predictable quotes from the bible that we've all heard before.

How do we know we aren't creating our faith based on the wrong reasons? Building a magnificent mansion on feeble stilts? It's not just about action, it's about the intention behind it as well. are we made in gods image so we don't separate our power over his? are we oblivious to the fact that regardless of how intelligent we get, he will still be above us?

Perhaps the pathway to stupidity & sin is bejeweled with the temptation of power & intelligence over others?

Maybe the path to true power & true understanding is through devotion to something more powerful.

[deluxe]

If you had taken the time to actually watch the entire series with a critical mind you would have seen Mr. Ra explain in detail why the ideas he represents are indeed true not to mention the details why the creation myth cannot possibly be real. To me the most important reason is that science has indeed followed the religious agenda and found no support for it what so ever.

 

Naturalistic causes on the other hand have an overwhelming amount of observable repeatable evidence to support them, and this data is not just accepted but is consistently tested and found to be demonstrably true, over and over, even today the details are being tested and found to be true and if not the the new data is added to what we know. Religion adds no new data to humanity, in fact it retards the growth of knowledge by arresting progress.

 

I think it's quite telling that not only are their no faith healers in emergency rooms (if you or a loved on is inured or sick do you want a faith healer or a doctor) but that religious writing, the word of god, has not even added something simple like basic pain relief to help stop suffering to man kinds store of knowledge, not even simple hygiene.

 

Science, on the other hand using the methodology of science has not only added to our total supply of knowledge but has created medicines that don't just relieve pain and suffering, science has eradicated disease, small pox is a good example, while creationism does nothing but exclaim loudly science is wrong, usually telling quite profound lies in the process.

 

Science is what allows us to live lives of relative health and plenty, our entire first world culture is based in science, do you really want to go back to the standard of living of 1000 years ago? Watch the videos, then come back with specific questions and I'll do my best to answer them... or it might be because I'm a member of the scientific establishments conspiracy and if i don't support them they will come to my house and shoot me....

The bottom line for the scientists is that they have given man the ability to ruin the earth and destroy himself.

1,000s of years ago I could improve the land I am on.

 

It is about the act of putting these chemicals together, to make life.

That where the scienctists do not have any idea. Because this is a very presice thing.

I watched the start of the 2nd one. Right at the first he shows animals in a progression. But he didn't show the transitional ones.Also if you look at that illustration you can see the planning that went in to those animals. God made one then adjusted the DNA and made another. In 'evolution' there would not be such a progression, you would find all sorts of mistakes and bad mutations. But they are not in the fossil record.

[Realitycheck]

Like I said, the infinitely more popular harmful mutations don't succeed in advancing the species, but very rarely, a mutation occurs which is beneficial, like a blonde-haired, blue-eyed beauty. You think God just descended out of thin air and changed the genetic code to make people more fair-skinned? How unholy! What do people's appearances have to do with anything in the realm of holiness?

The animals that were born without an arm or whatever simply weren't able to reproduce, not contributing to the gene pool and disappearing, but sometimes things happen that are good, hence we have fairer-skinned people. How unholy!

Edited October 13, 2011 by Realitycheck

[Moontanman]

The bottom line for the scientists is that they have given man the ability to ruin the earth and destroy himself.

1,000s of years ago I could improve the land I am on.

 

I don't understand what you are saying here.

 

It is about the act of putting these chemicals together, to make life.

That where the scienctists do not have any idea. Because this is a very presice thing.

 

Actually no it's not, but since you don't want to know anything that disagrees with your preconceptions i see no reason to guide you to explanations of abiogenesis which has nothing to do with evolution BTW. Although there are some pretty good hypothesis that involve evolutionary like processes.

 

I watched the start of the 2nd one. Right at the first he shows animals in a progression. But he didn't show the transitional ones.Also if you look at that illustration you can see the planning that went in to those animals. God made one then adjusted the DNA and made another. In 'evolution' there would not be such a progression, you would find all sorts of mistakes and bad mutations. But they are not in the fossil record.

 

 

So what would you expect to see in a transitional fossil?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

 

In 1859, when Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known, and Darwin described the lack of transitional fossils as "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory", but explained it by the extreme imperfection of the geological record.[1] He noted the limited collections available at that time, but described the available information as showing patterns which followed from his theory of descent with modification through natural selection.[2] Indeed, Archaeopteryx was discovered just two years later, in 1861, and represents a classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. Many more transitional fossils have been discovered since then and it is now considered that there is abundant evidence of how all the classes of vertebrates are related, much of it in the form of transitional fossils.[3]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

 

This is a tentative list of transitional fossils (fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with more derived organisms to which it is related). The fossils are listed in series, showing the transition from one group to another, representing significant steps in the evolution of major features in various lines. These changes often represent major changes in anatomy, related to mode of life, like the acquisition of feathered wings for an aerial lifestyle in birds, or legs in the fish/tetrapod transition. As noted already by Darwin, the fossil record is incomplete.[1]

Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor.[2] They will all include details unique to their own line as well. Fossils having relatively few such traits are termed "transitional", while those with a host of traits found neither in the ancestral or derived group are called "intermediate". Since all species will always be subject to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception. It is however a commonly used term and a useful concept in evolutionary biology. The fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features in various lines and therefore fit the common usage of the phrase.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishapod

 

Elpistostegalia or Panderichthyida is an order of prehistoric lobe-finned fishes which lived during the Late Devonian period (about 385 to 374 million years ago).[1] They represent the advanced tetrapodomorph stock, the fishes more closely related to tetrapods than the osteolepiform fishes. The elpistostegalians, combining fishlike and tetrapod-like characters, are sometimes called fishapods, a phrase coined for the advanced elpistostegalian Tiktaalik.

 

Or is it Human evolution that bothers you so much?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

 

The term "human" in the context of human evolution refers to the genus Homo, but studies of human evolution usually include other hominids, such as the Australopithecines, from which the genus Homo had diverged by about 2.3 to 2.4 million years ago in Africa.[2][3] Scientists have estimated that humans branched off from their common ancestor with chimpanzees about 5–7 million years ago. Several species and subspecies of Homo evolved and are now extinct, introgressed or extant. Examples include Homo erectus (which inhabited Asia, Africa, and Europe) and Neanderthals (either Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) (which inhabited Europe and Asia). Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago.

 

 

Reconstruction of Homo heidelbergensis which may be the direct ancestor of both Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens.

The dominant view among scientists concerning the origin of anatomically modern humans is the hypothesis known as "Out of Africa", recent African origin of modern humans, ROAM, or recent African origin hypothesis,[4][5][6] which argues that Homo sapiens arose in Africa and migrated out of the continent around 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, replacing populations of Homo erectus in Asia and Neanderthals in Europe.

Scientists supporting an alternative multiregional hypothesis argue that Homo sapiens evolved as geographically separate but interbreeding populations stemming from a worldwide migration of Homo erectus out of Africa nearly 2.5 million years ago. Evidence suggests that an X-linked haplotype of the Neanderthal origin is present among all non-African populations, and Neanderthals and other hominids, such as Denisova hominin may have contributed up to 6% of their genome to modern humans.[7][8] Archaic genetic contribution contradicts total Eurasian replacement around 100,000 years ago.[9]

 

Again i respectfully suggest that if you are really interested in learning that you watch all of AronRa's videos on the subject. If indeed you do not like MR Ra's videos then i suggest you watch Potholer54's videos on the same subject, he is a bit less abrasive...

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/DB23537556D7AADB/8/MCayG4IIOEQ

 

Potholer54 has an entire seris of "made easy" videos explaining everything from the beginning of the universe to abiogenesis to the scientific method, they are concise and easy to understand.

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/DB23537556D7AADB/3/v8nYTJf62sE

[Realitycheck]

For every amount of people which science enables people to kill others, it saves more, enables more to live longer by a hundredfold. What kind of justice would you profess?

[Moontanman]

What if there are laws of the universe that supersede the ones we have established in the portion of it we are able to observe? Things beyond our comprehension. How do we know the laws we have established are the truth?

 

We know the laws you speak of are the best explanation of the observable evidence, that is the only truth that is possible, we do not know everything about anything and what we do know is always subject to a certain degree of error. But science is self correcting, science does not check once and assume anything is true for all time, in fact the scientific method demands that everything be subject to change when new evidence is found and people look for that evidence all the time, religion simply assumes with no evidence and suppresses anyone even trying to check....

 

 

Maybe the path to true power & true understanding is through devotion to something more powerful.

 

I agree, we should all look to something more powerful than mere human guesses about how reality might work, that something is science and the scientific methodology....

[Brainteaserfan]

Take the story of Adam & Eve, God instructed them NOT to eat the apple, even though it appealed to their curiosity and desire for knowledge. Maybe it would make them more god-like & intelligent, but God told them NOT to do so, which was the real test. It doesn't matter, the apple may hold truths, but God said no... which is the point. If God told us not to eat a rotten apple, we would understand why, because it wouldn't make sense. So God asking us to do something that DOESN'T make sense is the only way to test our true faith in his word.

Doesn't make sense? He told them why not to - if they did, they would die. And, according to the Bible, so they did and died.

[Appolinaria]

Doesn't make sense? He told them why not to - if they did, they would die. And, according to the Bible, so they did and died.

 

but why wouldnt god want us to eat from the tree of knowledge? wouldnt he want us to understand the knowledge he created? thats what doesnt make sense to me. i wouldve eaten it for sure.

[Brainteaserfan]

but why wouldnt god want us to eat from the tree of knowledge? wouldnt he want us to understand the knowledge he created? thats what doesnt make sense to me. i wouldve eaten it for sure.

He didn't want us to eat of it because we would die if we did.

 

Why did he put the tree there? If He hadn't given us a way to disobey him, would we really have loved Him? He wanted to give us a choice so that we were not "forced" into loving and being obedient to Him. Does that make sense?

[Appolinaria]

He didn't want us to eat of it because we would die if we did.

 

Why did he put the tree there? If He hadn't given us a way to disobey him, would we really have loved Him? He wanted to give us a choice so that we were not "forced" into loving and being obedient to Him. Does that make sense?

 

but why punish us with death for wanting to be knowledgeable? that doesn't seem like the pursuit of anything wrong. I understand that the Bible says we must obey God, & that's why we were punished, but aside from that, what is the significance of it being the tree of knowledge? why not some other tree? that's my question.... god could have just said, hey don't eat from that random pear tree or you'll die, which would still be testing our obedience without specifying the tree's importance. but the bible specifically speaks about the tree of knowledge. is it because knowledge tempts us? if so, then why is it wrong?

[Brainteaserfan]

but why punish us with death for wanting to be knowledgeable? that doesn't seem like the pursuit of anything wrong. I understand that the Bible says we must obey God, & that's why we were punished, but aside from that, what is the significance of it being the tree of knowledge? why not some other tree? that's my question.... god could have just said, hey don't eat from that random pear tree or you'll die, which would still be testing our obedience without specifying the tree's importance. but the bible specifically speaks about the tree of knowledge. is it because knowledge tempts us? if so, then why is it wrong?

As I see it, if they wanted knowledge, that means that they wanted to be like God and not just trusting Him that (a) they shouldn't eat it, and (b) that they would die if they did. If they knew that they would end up dying, would they have still eaten from the tree?

So, a pear tree would have worked, but it would not have as clearly shown that they wanted to be like God. I have not studied this much, it is just my "knee-jerk" reaction (read, I am likely wrong).

[ponderer]

I presume all of these other posts were simply you're way of saying, "Even though I claim I can, I truly cannot prove that god exists."

 

I think we're probably done here. You have no intention whatsoever of doing anything other than making baseless claims and wild assertions.

 

 

No. Proving God's existance to you would be an offense to God. I said that.

 

You do not consider God in your proceedings. I do.

 

I can prove to you he exists, but it would offend him to do so. Get it?

 

Who here would stand against God, knowing him?

 

Would you stand against God?

 

How then could you ask me to do so?

 

I would rather serve God, than stand against him.

 

It's fundamental. God could reveal himself most convincingly to any and all at any time. Clearly he has chosen not to do so. Is it surprising then, that he would not want to be outed by some upstart?

 

As for being done here, we'll see, but as far as I am concerned, I was finished passing on any useful information some time ago.

 

I answered the OP, then I got asked to prove that God exists. Then I got dumped on for explaining that I could do that, but I wont.

 

Now, I am just confronting the insults.

 

If you do not believe in God, I could hardly expect you to believe me. Clearly that goes without saying. You are free to be as skeptical as you please. That's the idea isn't it?

 

Even if you believe in God, you have no call to believe me.

 

Like I care.

 

shrugs

Edited October 14, 2011 by ponderer

[iNow]

No. Proving God's existance to you would be an offense to God. I said that.

Of course. How convenient.

 

 

You do not consider God in your proceedings. I do.

You're right. I also don't include unicorns or santa claus or thor or apollo or poseidon in my proceedings, either.

 

 

I can prove to you he exists, but it would offend him to do so. Get it?

Yes. It's called a self-reinforcing delusion in psychological circles.

 

 

As for being done here, we'll see, but as far as I am concerned, I was finished passing on any useful information some time ago.

I suggest to you that you never actually started, but okay.

 

 

I answered the OP, then I got asked to prove that God exists. Then I got dumped on for explaining that I could do that, but I wont.

At least you're paying attention.

[Aristarchus in Exile]

I believe in God because God gave me faith to believe in God. I believe Jesus Christ is God because God gave me faith to believe that. I believe the King James Bible is true and perfect because God gave me the faith to believe it. God has also proven himself to me in many ways, including this past summer's employment as a live-in maintenance man at an all girls camp during which I was able to pay off my debts, this, despite having at one time sold illegal drugs, etc. God is able to do all things because God is God .. and God is Love. I found God when searching for the Truth and discovered that God is the truth.

 

P.S. The tree in the garden of Eden was not the tree of knowledge, it was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 2:17 (Whole Chapter)

Edited October 14, 2011 by Aristarchus in Exile

[Moontanman]

I believe in God because God gave me faith to believe in God. I believe Jesus Christ is God because God gave me faith to believe that. I believe the King James Bible is true and perfect because God gave me the faith to believe it. God has also proven himself to me in many ways, including this past summer's employment as a live-in maintenance man at an all girls camp during which I was able to pay off my debts, this, despite having at one time sold illegal drugs, etc. God is able to do all things because God is God .. and God is Love. I found God when searching for the Truth and discovered that God is the truth.

 

P.S. The tree in the garden of Eden was not the tree of knowledge, it was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 2:17 (Whole Chapter)

 

 

Isn't that a bit self serving, god told me god was real so i know god is real because god told me he was real?

[Appolinaria]

I believe in God because God gave me faith to believe in God. I believe Jesus Christ is God because God gave me faith to believe that. I believe the King James Bible is true and perfect because God gave me the faith to believe it. God has also proven himself to me in many ways, including this past summer's employment as a live-in maintenance man at an all girls camp during which I was able to pay off my debts, this, despite having at one time sold illegal drugs, etc. God is able to do all things because God is God .. and God is Love. I found God when searching for the Truth and discovered that God is the truth.

 

P.S. The tree in the garden of Eden was not the tree of knowledge, it was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 2:17 (Whole Chapter)

 

ok, why wouldnt he want us to be able to discern between good & evil?

[A Tripolation]

You do not consider God in your proceedings. I do.

 

I believe in God. I think you're full of crap.

 

I can prove to you he exists, but it would offend him to do so. Get it?

 

I doubt the infinite, omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe would allow himself to be offended by a lowly human.

 

 

I would rather serve God, than stand against him.

 

The God I know wants EVERYONE to know him and love him. This is how it is with most monotheistic Gods. I think spreading the proof of his existence would only serve him.

 

It's fundamental. God could reveal himself most convincingly to any and all at any time. Clearly he has chosen not to do so. Is it surprising then, that he would not want to be outed by some upstart?

 

Which makes it all the more suspicious that you would even DARE say anything about even being able to prove he exists. Aren't you afraid of some divine wrath?

 

 

Even if you believe in God, you have no call to believe me.

 

You shouldn't have brought it up on the first place, then.

 

In 'evolution' there would not be such a progression, you would find all sorts of mistakes and bad mutations.

 

You mean like heart conditions, genetic disorders, people born with handicaps and such? You're right. It's so amazing none of that exists. We are clearly the product of a PERFECT design. Nothing ever goes wrong with us!

 

Try harder.

Edited October 14, 2011 by A Tripolation

[Brainteaserfan]

I believe in God. I think you're full of crap.

 

 

 

I doubt the infinite, omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe would allow himself to be offended by a lowly human.

 

 

 

 

The God I know wants EVERYONE to know him and love him. This is how it is with most monotheistic Gods. I think spreading the proof of his existence would only serve him.

 

 

 

Which makes it all the more suspicious that you would even DARE say anything about even being able to prove he exists. Aren't you afraid of some divine wrath?

 

 

 

 

You shouldn't have brought it up on the first place, then.

 

 

 

You mean like heart conditions, genetic disorders, people born with handicaps and such? You're right. It's so amazing none of that exists. We are clearly the product of a PERFECT design. Nothing ever goes wrong with us!

 

Try harder.

We were the product of a perfect design -- before we sinned.

[Realitycheck]

You know, there's one aspect of this "perfect design" that I've always had an issue with. I can't imagine why so many people have so much trouble seeing through it. If Adam and Eve had never ate of the fruit, everybody would still be naked, animals tempted by their neighbors' wives raw flesh even more in an even more animalistic world. So how was this design so perfect? Since none of it really never even happened and it's just part of a story to model peoples' lives from, I don't see how it's that big of a deal, but it's really hard to see how "God's" original design was worth much at all.

[ponderer]

 

You shouldn't have brought it up on the first place, then.

 

 

 

 

I didn't bring it up. I was asked to prove that God exists. You would like it, and feel smug I suppose, if I would quietly fold and say that I can't do that. but I can, axiomatically from first principles.

 

I am revealing nothing of the proof, only that there is one.

 

It matters little. You will never believe me. I am not beating any drum or trying to convert anyone. I am not trying to make a name for myself. You don`t even have any idea who I am. I am very comfortable. God has blessed me. It is a satisfying personal milestone, little more.

[Brainteaserfan]

You know, there's one aspect of this "perfect design" that I've always had an issue with. I can't imagine why so many people have so much trouble seeing through it. If Adam and Eve had never ate of the fruit, everybody would still be naked, animals tempted by their neighbors' wives raw flesh even more in an even more animalistic world. So how was this design so perfect? Since none of it really never even happened and it's just part of a story to model peoples' lives from, I don't see how it's that big of a deal, but it's really hard to see how "God's" original design was worth much at all.

No sickness, no pain, no death, no work, food taken care of, perfect temperature, no rain, animals lived in harmony with one another and humans... What wasn't perfect?