Why did God make pain so painful?

[OnceConvinced]

As a Christian I believed that God created us to be able to feel physical pain as a protective mechanism. So when we say touched a hot element or flame, that pain forced us to withdraw our hand. This was a way to protect us against the damage that flames or hot elements would do to our body if we continued to handle them.

If you are a theist who believes the above like I did, then this thread is definitely for you and I'd really like to hear your opinions on this. If not, then this debate is not aimed at you. Of course anyone, even non-theists are welcome to tune in with their view on this topic. Just please do not try to argue that the above view is a false one. In this thread we are assuming that it is true... ie that God created pain as a protective mechanism for us. (and that God is real!)

Moving on to what I want to talk about...

My issue is with the intensity of the pain we experience in the above scenario... or similar ones. This is not just a slight deterrent to prevent you from touching something dangerous. This is a extremely intense pain we are talking about. Horrible pain inflicted upon us when we touch say a flame. What's worse is that even just touching it, we can be in real pain for some time after. Even just one touch can result in damage to our skin, even if it's minor and temporary.

Why is the pain so intense? Why does it need to be that horrible just to deter us from touching say a flame ever again? Couldn't the pain it cause be a little less sadistic?

Even farmers know that to keep their livestock fenced in that you only turn up the electricity so high on your electric fences. Just enough to give the animals a jolt so that it will deter them from ever touching the fence again. They know there is no need to turn the electricity up to a ridiculously high level so that the animal suffers more that what's necessary. Yet God seems to have turned the electricity right up for us humans.

So why does God turn up that pain to such a high level?

Why does God not provide a different defense mechanism that isn't so cruel?

A question that kind of encompasses these questions... Why did God make pain so painful?

[OnceConvinced]

Are nonsensical questions more likely to yield sensible or nonsensical answers.

This is a serious question I am asking which requires serious answers. What we see here is clearly malevolent design. I would like to see how that is not the case.

Why is pain so painful? Why is hot so hot? Couldn't a good God make hot, just a little less hot, so I wouldn't call it hot anymore?

This is nothing like what I am asking. Hot can certainly be hot, but why does it have to be so hot that it causes incredibly severe pain.

The question you pose does not make sense.

But yet you did a 5 paragraph reply answering that question, showing that it made perfect sense to you. If the question is so silly and doesn't make sense, then why are you even replying? Why have you typed so much?

I will take it that this question really bothers you a lot and that it makes you uncomfortable. That is why you are criticizing it.

I guess in your mind uniformity is supreme.

No. You completely misinterpret me.

Variation and diversity should not exist.

I never even suggested such a thing. Evolution shows that it SHOULD exist.

There are degrees to everything in creation. Some flowers are more "blue" than others. The degree of "blueness" has benefits and consequences. Degree's of pain help us to remember certain events more than others. The pain of a flame is more painful to remind us of the severity of danger which can be associated with a flame. Which is more dangerous, a flame which causes a burn, or a sheet of paper which causes a papercut. The degree of pain, helps us indentify and categorize dangers.

Does it really need to be so severe for us to remember it? I say no. A cow for instance, which is far less intelligent than a human knows not to touch an electric fence when it is set at a lower voltage. There is no need for a higher voltage. Are you saying that humans are less intelligent than cows? Farmers.. who are far less intelligent than God are aware of this so lower the voltage accordingly. Are you suggesting God is less intelligent than farmers?

Let's compare a smack on the backside of a child to a strike around the backside with a baseball bat. Is not the smack enough? Or do you prefer to inflict more fear, pain and terror on your child? Perhaps you prefer to rule with terror?

Why does a person have more fear if someone is holding a gun to their head, as opposed to a pillow fight. The gun can cause a greater degree of damage.

Check out the smacking analogy I use. Is not a smack just as effective as a whack across the butt with a baseball bat? Likewise when it came to teaching your children, would you need to point a gun to your kid's head to get them to learn something?

BTW a pillow is not a relevant comparison. Compare it to a gun vs a fist. Imagine you had a child there. Would not a fist to the head have the desired effect? Or would you really need a gun?

Variation and diversity are a blessing.

So you consider real intense pain over not so intense pain a blessing?

Even consequences of actions have variations and diversity. According to your logic there should be no diversity or variation.

Nope. I never even suggested such a thing. All I am asking is why inflict more pain than what is necessary to teach your loved ones?''

Even schools have worked out that inflicting pain is not the best method to teach someone something. Do you advocate that pain is the best method to teach people lessons?

........

So... after all that, the question wasn't quite as nonsensical as you claimed, was it? You actually took it seriously enough to make a 5 paragraph reply. No doubt this question bothered you a great deal and will continue to bother you next time you feel the intense pain of touching a hot element or something similar. Ask yourself next time, "did it really need to be that painful for me to know not to touch it"?

Malevolent design KingandPriest. That is what we have here... unless of course you believe in evolution, then the answer is quite clear. Pain is what pain is. There is no designer behind it. Nobody is trying to teach us anything. It's just an unfortunate reality of the universe we live in.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 21 by OnceConvinced]

This is a serious question I am asking which requires serious answers. What we see here is clearly malevolent design. I would like to see how that is not the case.

Thanks for clearly showing the bias of the question.

Why is pain so painful? Why is hot so hot? Couldn't a good God make hot, just a little less hot, so I wouldn't call it hot anymore?

This is nothing like what I am asking. Hot can certainly be hot, but why does it have to be so hot that it causes incredibly severe pain.

Sorry I will rephrase the question to demonstrate how much it still does not make sense. Why is hot so hot? Why does it have to be so hot that it causes incredibly severe pain?

You desire that hot, be just a little less hot and not cause severe pain. So you are asking, why couldn't a good God make hot, just a little less hot? Do you see the flaw in the question yet?

You are asking for pain to be less painful. This is the same as asking for hot to be less hot, or blue to be less blue. Why does alive have to be so alive? All of these questions are nonsensical in nature.

The question you pose does not make sense.

But yet you did a 5 paragraph reply answering that question, showing that it made perfect sense to you. If the question is so silly and doesn't make sense, then why are you even replying? Why have you typed so much?

I will take it that this question really bothers you a lot and that it makes you uncomfortable. That is why you are criticizing it.

More like 1 paragraph and a few sentences to provide additional rationale. The question does not make me uncomfortable. In fact the question is laughable and enjoyable because it is like a child who is at that phase of discovery where everything is questioned with why.

Parent tells child not to touch stove because it is hot. Child asks why. Parent responds it is dangerous and they want to keep the child safe. Child asks why. Parent says by telling the child because they love them and don't to see the child harmed. Child asks why is stove hot. Parent responds because that is the temperature needed to cook food properly. Then the child responds: why, why, why, why, why why...

I guess in your mind uniformity is supreme. Variation and diversity should not exist.

No. You completely misinterpret me. I never even suggested such a thing. Evolution shows that it SHOULD exist.

The thought process you laid out in the OP suggested that you do not believe God could or should have created diversity or variation. Based on how you wrote the OP, pain should be just the right amount and never have variations. Even though people have different tolerances for pain, there should just be a uniform maximum amount of pain that a human should be able to experience.

My issue is with the intensity of the pain we experience in the above scenario... or similar ones.

You have an issue with the variations and diversity of pain. Did i interpret this sentence incorrectly?

Do you think pain should not have any diversity or variation?

There are degrees to everything in creation. Some flowers are more "blue" than others. The degree of "blueness" has benefits and consequences. Degree's of pain help us to remember certain events more than others. The pain of a flame is more painful to remind us of the severity of danger which can be associated with a flame. Which is more dangerous, a flame which causes a burn, or a sheet of paper which causes a papercut. The degree of pain, helps us indentify and categorize dangers.

Does it really need to be so severe for us to remember it? I say no. A cow for instance, which is far less intelligent than a human knows not to touch an electric fence when it is set at a lower voltage. There is no need for a higher voltage. Are you saying that humans are less intelligent than cows? Farmers.. who are far less intelligent than God are aware of this so lower the voltage accordingly. Are you suggesting God is less intelligent than farmers?

Let's compare a smack on the backside of a child to a strike around the backside with a baseball bat. Is not the smack enough? Or do you prefer to inflict more fear, pain and terror on your child? Perhaps you prefer to rule with terror?

Once again, do you find the variable types of pain a person may incur as a bad thing?

Also your OP began with a question about why is pain so painful. Why can the pain from a flame cause excruciating pain when a simple amount of pain might do? Then you switch to a person inflicting pain on another individual. These are two different trains of thought. Inflicting pain involves the will of a person, not the source of the pain itself. A gun cannot cause pain by itself. It needs someone to squeeze the trigger. Your first ask why pain is so painful, and then switch to a person inflicting pain on another.

It seems your real question is why can people inflict various degrees of pain on another? Why can a person use a flame or weapon to inflict severe pain?

Please confirm if you want to change the OP to reflect what you really want to know.

Check out the smacking analogy I use. Is not a smack just as effective as a whack across the butt with a baseball bat? Likewise when it came to teaching your children, would you need to point a gun to your kid's head to get them to learn something?

BTW a pillow is not a relevant comparison. Compare it to a gun vs a fist. Imagine you had a child there. Would not a fist to the head have the desired effect? Or would you really need a gun?

Whether I use the smacking scenario you presented, or a gun vs a fist, this still brings in the will of an additional person into the equation. Pain is not biased or discriminatory. People on the other hand are, and will utilize pain to achieve a goal.

For some, an emotional would is far more painful than a physical wound. Variation of pain exists in the world, because God created everything with variation. No two persons have the same fingerprint. In the same way, pain has variation and degrees of diversity.

You ask why does God turn up the pain to such a high level? Am I to presume that you consider a persons sensitivity as "God turning up the pain"?

You also ask, Why does God not provide a different defense mechanism that isn't so cruel? Am I to presume that you consider being able to interact with ones environment as cruel. Being able to touch a loved one is cruel? The same receptors that are used to feel pleasure are also used for pain. In your mind, is it cruel to use the same receptors? Should God have designed us more inefficiently?

So you consider real intense pain over not so intense pain a blessing?

Yes, if the intense pain will save my life. I would rather have experienced intense pain and live, then experience not so intense pain, and die as a result. Pain can be useful. If pain were always excruciating, I think you would have a point, but the fact that pain is diverse and can exist in various degrees, your point is mute.

All I am asking is why inflict more pain than what is necessary to teach your loved ones?

How do we get from

"So why does God turn up that pain to such a high level?

Why does God not provide a different defense mechanism that isn't so cruel?

A question that kind of encompasses these questions... Why did God make pain so painful?"

to inflicting pain on a loved one. Inflicting pain is a willful act. This has nothing to do with God creating our bodies to experience multiple degrees of pleasure an pain.

What is your subject here. Is it that our bodies can experience pain or that people can inflict pain?

Who is the arbitrator in this scenario?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 13 by OnceConvinced]

No, because that would be silly. Simply change the amount of pain that a human would endure if coming into contact with it.

Would that not require God to be there every 0.0000000000000000000001 seconds to cushion the pain of everyone?
We are not dealing with a sci-fi movie like Superman, who needs to run around the clock trying to save the day.

Is excruciating pain required to help humans gain wisdom and common sense?

Not at all.

Or from an evolutionary perspective, the bee can land on a flower without damaging it because it can

You got me with that one.

Nope. There is no blind chance involved. A bee can land on a flower without damaging it. An elephant can't. It's just a basic reality.

You are looking at evolution all wrong. What we have is an inevitable outcome, not blind chance. If the system worked in a different way we would have completely different outcomes. If we had a completely different system, maybe you might have elephant sized bees with tongues of dragons. But we don't. We have what we have because it's the only way it could ever have been.

That's a lot about the how the system is, but it doesn't explain why it is the way it is.
I know, I know. Science doesn't need to know why. They just need to know how.
That's not going to stop the billions from asking why, and so, you are going to keep losing millions to religion, as they look for the answers

However if a God was involved, he could design the system any way he wanted to. He could have created elephant sized bees with dragon tongues if he so wished. He could have even made flowers that support the weight of them.

He could also make fire or ice burns a lot less painful for humans.

He made it how he wanted, and in wisdom he designed everything.
You are not able to argue that if God did design everything, then he could have done better, because you can't even produce a piece of energy like the sun, and as tiny as this dot.
So talk doesn't demonstrate anything, does it?


[Replying to post 14 by OnceConvinced]

There is no problem for evolution here. Once again you look at it from a creationists perspective. You look at the end product and then work your way backwards.

You've got it in reverse. That's what evolution does. They have no choice but to do that either.

Because termites evolved to eat wood and bees didn't.

Sounds like a great bedtime story.
The reality of it however is completely in one's imagination.
Unless of course, you can show me otherwise.

No, it seems to only be a problem for creationists, who often don't understand basic evolution. Try stepping outside of the creationist mindset and you'll see just how simple it becomes.

How far out do you want me to step?
It sounds more to me as though you are asking me to close my eyes, and mind, and just have the faith you have.

That would be similar to reference Jesus made of the Pharisees - the blind being led by the blind, both falling into a pit.
There are just some things sensible people will never believe - evolution is one.

This is how bad it is.
If I ever were to reject God and the Bible, I would still not accept evolution. I would prefer to go with the other myths, such as Odin, and Ptah, than to believe such a ridiculous story as evolution.

Blind chance, or intelligent design?
[youtube][/youtube]

Imagine, you want me to believe that chance processes were responsible for the male and female reproductive organs, that just so happened to form a perfect complimentary pair, with all the connecting nerve cells to the right area of the brain, which results in intense pleasure - note, pleasure, not pain.
I don't even believe that you believe that.


However, I have answered your question, in the most sensible, and simple way I can.
If it's not satisfactory, then I can only suggest, perhas you can tell us, not what God should do, but how he should do it.
I think that would make an interesting debate.

Additionally, if you believe evolution is the light of truth, it would be interesting to see you put forth an argument for it - with evidence.
That's something I have never seen coming from your direction.
All I have seen, since I have been here, is your experience as to why you reject God and the Bible - not religion, because Charles Darwin started a new one, and the faith it requires from its believes, surpasses all existing faiths.

So I could probably understand why you would think your question is appropriate, because evolution does involve some miracles that break all universal laws.

There is no blind chance in evolution, only inevitable outcomes.

I don't understand why non-theist on these forums keep substituting the expression "blind chance" for other expressions that don't change the basic understanding.
Blind chance, chemical processes, inevitable outcomes... What's the difference?

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 8 by OnceConvinced]

So let's make the sun an iceburg, and ice a fireball.
Would they do their job?

I say wisdom, not blind chance, is the logical, and reasonable answer for why things are the way they are.
The reason a bee can land on a flower without damaging the flower is because it was designed by a wise creator.
Blind chance would probably have produced an elephant sized bee, with the tongue of a dragon.

Goodbye flower.

What process would produce "blind chance" animals? Not the theory of evolution, since natural selection has some order to it. So this must be something entirely new we've not heard about. Why don't you tell us all about it...

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 24 by Kenisaw]

Blind chance, chemical processes, inevitable outcomes... What's the difference?

Why do I always have to be the one doing all the explaining?
Why don't you do a little for a change?
Blind chance, chemical processes, inevitable outcomes... What's the difference?

[Kenisaw]

As a Christian I believed that God created us to be able to feel physical pain as a protective mechanism. So when we say touched a hot element or flame, that pain forced us to withdraw our hand. This was a way to protect us against the damage that flames or hot elements would do to our body if we continued to handle them.

If you are a theist who believes the above like I did, then this thread is definitely for you and I'd really like to hear your opinions on this. If not, then this debate is not aimed at you. Of course anyone, even non-theists are welcome to tune in with their view on this topic. Just please do not try to argue that the above view is a false one. In this thread we are assuming that it is true... ie that God created pain as a protective mechanism for us. (and that God is real!)

Moving on to what I want to talk about...

My issue is with the intensity of the pain we experience in the above scenario... or similar ones. This is not just a slight deterrent to prevent you from touching something dangerous. This is a extremely intense pain we are talking about. Horrible pain inflicted upon us when we touch say a flame. What's worse is that even just touching it, we can be in real pain for some time after. Even just one touch can result in damage to our skin, even if it's minor and temporary.

Why is the pain so intense? Why does it need to be that horrible just to deter us from touching say a flame ever again? Couldn't the pain it cause be a little less sadistic?

Even farmers know that to keep their livestock fenced in that you only turn up the electricity so high on your electric fences. Just enough to give the animals a jolt so that it will deter them from ever touching the fence again. They know there is no need to turn the electricity up to a ridiculously high level so that the animal suffers more that what's necessary. Yet God seems to have turned the electricity right up for us humans.

So why does God turn up that pain to such a high level?

Why does God not provide a different defense mechanism that isn't so cruel?

A question that kind of encompasses these questions... Why did God make pain so painful?

Whichever of the god creatures made humans did a poor job. I've taken an 85 mph fastball in the butt cheek, and I get the same amount of pain and numbness that I do from barely hitting my ulnar nerve (the funny bone) on the edge of the refrigerator door. There's no logic to that, and it's nonsense to suggest an all knowing, all powerful being that's perfect could create such an imbalanced inefficient carbon based machine

[Kenisaw]

Why do I always have to be the one doing all the explaining?

You're the one introducing this brand new method of animal creation, the "blind chance" method it's apparently called, and you want me to explanation it? How am I supposed to explain something that is unknown to the world outside of your mind? Again I ask, please share this new method with us...

Why don't you do a little for a change? Blind chance, chemical processes, inevitable outcomes... What's the difference?

Blind chance is a statistical sampling relating to probability in populations. Chemical processes is the interaction of atoms and molecules with each other then produces new combinations and other things, like energy (heat or light for example). Inevitable Outcome is an Xbox game. It is also a synonym for the word fate.

Not sure why you needed all that, but I hope it helps...

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 27 by Kenisaw]

Blind chance is a statistical sampling relating to probability in populations. Chemical processes is the interaction of atoms and molecules with each other then produces new combinations and other things, like energy (heat or light for example). Inevitable Outcome is an Xbox game. It is also a synonym for the word fate.

Not sure why you needed all that, but I hope it helps...

Thanks.
The definition you gave for blind chance is a totally different concept from the one in this context.
Blind chance in the context being used here refers to something happening just by pure accident.

So it would seem that chemical processes randomly assembling, and fate, all fit the same category.
If you see differently, perhaps you can help clear it up for me.

[OnceConvinced]

Hi. Kingandpreist. Thank you for continuing to show me that this question really bugs you and that you continue to take it very seriously.

You desire that hot, be just a little less hot and not cause severe pain. So you are asking, why couldn't a good God make hot, just a little less hot? Do you see the flaw in the question yet?

You are asking for pain to be less painful. This is the same as asking for hot to be less hot, or blue to be less blue. Why does alive have to be so alive? All of these questions are nonsensical in nature.

They would be if we were talking evolution. However throw a god into the picture and it's not nonsensical. God determines the attribute of everything right? So he can determine just how much pain is inflicted by something.

The question you pose does not make sense.

But yet you did a 5 paragraph reply answering that question, showing that it made perfect sense to you. If the question is so silly and doesn't make sense, then why are you even replying? Why have you typed so much?

I will take it that this question really bothers you a lot and that it makes you uncomfortable. That is why you are criticizing it.

More like 1 paragraph and a few sentences to provide additional rationale. The question does not make me uncomfortable.

The fact that you are posting what you are posting shows me it does. You are doing your best to try to discredit my question.

In fact the question is laughable and enjoyable because it is

Then why are you taking it so seriously? In fact this post of yours has become very long, thus showing me you are taking it very seriously and it’s not as laughable as you claim.

like a child who is at that phase of discovery where everything is questioned with why.

A question that people like yourself cannot even come up with an adequate answer for. Instead you mock the question in an attempt to side track. You dance around it. Is that what you would do if your child asked a similar question?

Why is god so malevolent in his design, KingandPreist. Can you answer that one?

Parent tells child not to touch stove because it is hot. Child asks why. Parent responds it is dangerous and they want to keep the child safe. Child asks why. Parent says by telling the child because they love them and don't to see the child harmed. Child asks why is stove hot. Parent responds because that is the temperature needed to cook food properly. Then the child responds: why, why, why, why, why why...

Can you answer the question or are you just going to continue to dance around it? Why is the pain of a flame so intense? Why does it need to be that intense?

If you are not going to at least attempt to come up with a logical answer, then please go to another thread.

I guess in your mind uniformity is supreme. Variation and diversity should not exist.

No. You completely misinterpret me. I never even suggested such a thing. Evolution shows that it SHOULD exist.

The thought process you laid out in the OP suggested that you do not believe God could or should have created diversity or variation. Based on how you wrote the OP, pain should be just the right amount and never have variations. Even though people have different tolerances for pain, there should just be a uniform maximum amount of pain that a human should be able to experience.

Why would there need to be variations if it was a result of creation? Something like a flame is agonising for anyone no matter what their threshold of pain is. Why does it need to be that agonising?

This is a supposedly loving God we’re talking about here.

Once again, do you find the variable types of pain a person may incur as a bad thing?

No I say that extremes of pain are a bad thing. More pain than what is needed. If you smack a child does it need to be done with the full force of the power you possess?

Also your OP began with a question about why is pain so painful. Why can the pain from a flame cause excruciating pain when a simple amount of pain might do? Then you switch to a person inflicting pain on another individual. These are two different trains of thought.

No it’s not. If God is the one who designed the system, then he is the one inflicting the pain.

Inflicting pain involves the will of a person, not the source of the pain itself.

God is the one who designed and created the source of the pain and determined how much pain it would inflict.

A gun cannot cause pain by itself. It needs someone to squeeze the trigger. Your first ask why pain is so painful, and then switch to a person inflicting pain on another.

If we are talking about the explosive substance in the bullet, we have to go back to whoever designed the substance to explode and cause such damage and agony.

It seems your real question is why can people inflict various degrees of pain on another? Why can a person use a flame or weapon to inflict severe pain?

Nope it’s not. It seems you want to absolve God of any responsibility for his obvious malevolent design.

Check out the smacking analogy I use. Is not a smack just as effective as a whack across the butt with a baseball bat? Likewise when it came to teaching your children, would you need to point a gun to your kid's head to get them to learn something?

BTW a pillow is not a relevant comparison. Compare it to a gun vs a fist. Imagine you had a child there. Would not a fist to the head have the desired effect? Or would you really need a gun?

Whether I use the smacking scenario you presented, or a gun vs a fist, this still brings in the will of an additional person into the equation. Pain is not biased or discriminatory. People on the other hand are, and will utilize pain to achieve a goal.

Are you deliberately trying to take this topic off track?

God is the one who determines how much pain fire, ice and all the other things inflict. It was part of his design.

You ask why does God turn up the pain to such a high level? Am I to presume that you consider a persons sensitivity as "God turning up the pain"?

We all find fire burns extremely painful. Even those with a high threshold for pain. Why is it so agonising even for those of us with the highest threshold?

You also ask, Why does God not provide a different defense mechanism that isn't so cruel? Am I to presume that you consider being able to interact with ones environment as cruel.

No, I don’t.

Being able to touch a loved one is cruel? The same receptors that are used to feel pleasure are also used for pain. In your mind, is it cruel to use the same receptors? Should God have designed us more inefficiently?

Pleasure vs pain has already been discussed on this thread. It’s not about thresholds. It’s not about sensitivities. Some things are agonising for all of us. Way more agonising than need be.

So you consider real intense pain over not so intense pain a blessing?

Yes, if the intense pain will save my life.
I would rather have experienced intense pain and live, then experience not so intense pain, and die as a result. Pain can be useful.

Does it really need to be that intense though?

If pain were always excruciating, I think you would have a point, but the fact that pain is diverse and can exist in various degrees, your point is mute.

Fire burns for instance are always excruciating. Does it need to be so painful to act as a defence mechanism? To act as a deterrent?

to inflicting pain on a loved one. Inflicting pain is a willful act. This has nothing to do with God creating our bodies to experience multiple degrees of pleasure an pain.

But it HAS. He is the one who designed everything and determined just how intense our suffering would be. HE was the one who determined that fire burns would be horrific and agonising. It was a WILLFUL act of design and creation on his part. How could you consider it any other way? Do you believe he was ignorant of how he was designing the system?

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 13 by OnceConvinced]

No, because that would be silly. Simply change the amount of pain that a human would endure if coming into contact with it.

Would that not require God to be there every 0.0000000000000000000001 seconds to cushion the pain of everyone?

Nope. Just lower the amount of pain that something he creates inflicts. So when he originally set up that electric fence for us, ensure that the voltage is lower so that it's not so agonizing and that we don't suffer quite so much.

All it requires is that God not be quite so malevolent in his design.

Is excruciating pain required to help humans gain wisdom and common sense?

Not at all.

So why the need to turn the voltage up so high on that electric fence?

[
That's a lot about the how the system is, but it doesn't explain why it is the way it is.
I know, I know. Science doesn't need to know why. They just need to know how.
That's not going to stop the billions from asking why, and so, you are going to keep losing millions to religion, as they look for the answers

I think if you have a basic understanding of evolution, you don’t need to go searching for answers in religion. That just brings magic into the whole shebang. One only needs to say “goddidit� if they are desperate for answers and cannot handle not knowing certain things.

From my point of view, whether it was evolution or God, the fact we are here is absolutely incredible. It happened! I just don’t see the need to conclude it got here by magic.

]
You are not able to argue that if God did design everything, then he could have done better, because you can't even produce a piece of energy like the sun, and as tiny as this dot.
So talk doesn't demonstrate anything, does it?

There are many things that I could say were done badly. In fact a lot of what I see shows either incompetent design or malevolent design.

The terrible things we see in this world can be explained by evolution. They turned out that way because that was the natural process of things. However as soon as you put God into the mix suddenly you have things that were deliberately created or accidentally created to be terrible.

[Replying to post 14 by OnceConvinced]

There is no problem for evolution here. Once again you look at it from a creationists perspective. You look at the end product and then work your way backwards.

You've got it in reverse. That's what evolution does. They have no choice but to do that either.

That’s not true. With Creationism you say “Goddidit� and then you set out to prove God did it. With evolution you look at what there is and then you draw a conclusion.

Evolution has no goal in mind. The creationists looks at the universe and thinks there has to be some plan. There has to be some ultimate outcome. That is not the case with evolution.

Because termites evolved to eat wood and bees didn't.

Sounds like a great bedtime story.
The reality of it however is completely in one's imagination.
Unless of course, you can show me otherwise.

No it’s because that’s what we see in reality. Termites eat wood. Bees don’t. That is how it’s turned out.

No, it seems to only be a problem for creationists, who often don't understand basic evolution. Try stepping outside of the creationist mindset and you'll see just how simple it becomes.

How far out do you want me to step?
It sounds more to me as though you are asking me to close my eyes, and mind, and just have the faith you have.

Just take off the Creationist rose-colored spectacles. Understand that evolution has no goal in mind. It is what it is.

That would be similar to reference Jesus made of the Pharisees - the blind being led by the blind, both falling into a pit.
There are just some things sensible people will never believe - evolution is one.

I would say that believing in a magical being who creates things by saying “abracadabra� is not sensible.

This is how bad it is.
If I ever were to reject God and the Bible, I would still not accept evolution. I would prefer to go with the other myths, such as Odin, and Ptah, than to believe such a ridiculous story as evolution.

Of course you would because you have already accepted myths and ridiculous stories from the bible.

When I lost my faith I refused to let go of a believe in a god at first. I just couldn't fathom a world that wasn't created by a god. I didn't want to believe it. I can fully understand where you are coming from. However for me I'd spend 40 years of my life as a Christian. If that was wrong, I didn't want to waste any more time on any other gods.

In the end I took off my god glasses and then suddenly it all became of obvious to me. Evolution just made so much more sense than magical beings creating things out of nothing.

Seriously, if you were to bring God into it then you would have to start believing in all sorts of other absurdities too like demons, Satan, talking asses, talking snakes and all sorts of other baloney

Blind chance, or intelligent design?

You keep saying “blind chance� but that is not evolution. Evolution is about inevitable outcomes, not blind chance.

Imagine, you want me to believe that chance processes were responsible for the male and female reproductive organs, that just so happened to form a perfect complimentary pair, with all the connecting nerve cells to the right area of the brain, which results in intense pleasure - note, pleasure, not pain.
I don't even believe that you believe that.

Well no, because that’s a creationist way of looking at it, which is silly IMO. Believing that there was some ultimate goal with evolution. We have this system because that’s what evolved. Who’s to say it’s the ideal system? In fact it’s far from ideal.

What we have is millions of years of trial and error. What we have today is due to a particular path being taken and it was a path that worked. Gazillions of other paths would have been taken over this time, all which would have ended in a dead end. One way out of all that those ways worked and resulted in what we have to day. It was the only outcome that could have been achieved on that particular route.

Imagine you wake up one morning and have no memory of your life. Imagine that when you wake up you find yourself (as David Byrne sings) in a beautiful house with a beautiful wife and you think to yourself “how did I get here? This is amazing. Miraculous! Surely I didn’t just get here by blind chance?�

And then gradually bit by bit your memory starts to come back. From the moment you are born you start to remember every path you took, every step you took, every decision you made, every outside influence you experienced and bit by bit you see the path the led you to where you are today. Suddenly it all becomes perfectly comprehendible. No longer would you see it as miraculously. You would see how it happened. You would see that where you are now is the inevitable outcomes of millions of decisions and outside influence.

That is how it is with evolution. It's just that we don't have all the pieces together.

Additionally, if you believe evolution is the light of truth, it would be interesting to see you put forth an argument for it - with evidence.

I really have no desire to. I am just happy to be here alive today. I don’t need to know how I got here. Do you?

All I have seen, since I have been here, is your experience as to why you reject God and the Bible - not religion, because Charles Darwin started a new one, and the faith it requires from its believes, surpasses all existing faiths.

I can see that evolution is the way it worked. I don’t need to do an intense study of it. I have no desire to. I don’t even care what Charles Darwin says. I can see reality for myself.

So I could probably understand why you would think your question is appropriate, because evolution does involve some miracles that break all universal laws.

No it doesn’t. It’s just that you have that creationist mindset that miracles are needed. There is stuff you don’t know and don’t understand so you insert “goddidit� into the process. It reminds me of this cartoon:

Blind chance, chemical processes, inevitable outcomes... What's the difference?

Seriously? You can see the difference between something that is here by blind chance and something that is here as an inevitable outcome?

Fine, you stick with your creationist mindset. There’s no point in debating with you if you are going to do that. It just shows me you are determined not to even attempt to understand basic evolution.