Re: [asa] Is God a big meanie?

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Date: Tue May 05 2009 - 14:32:07 EDT

Bernie,
Your notion of natural evil seems to amount to anything found unpleasant.
But think for a minute about a world without death. Consider one
bacterium, small, but dividing twice an hour. That's about 2^17500 alive
at the end of one year. I don't know the volume, but I figure it would
slime up the world rather quickly. The only way to avoid this is to have
a static world without reproduction.

A different claim is that the children, at least, should not die or be
hurt seriously. How do you arrange the laws of physics so that there is
no injury when a child runs into the street after a ball with a car
approaching at normal speed? At what age would injury or death be allowed
to avoid a totally static world?

The desire for no pain is as silly, for pain signals that something is
wrong. If a broken bone didn't hurt, how could it get a chance to heal?
Maybe you can figure out a way for the ends to snap together as soon as
they lined up.

Seems to me that those who think that a good world would have neither
pain nor death have not thought the matter through.
Dave (ASA)

On Tue, 5 May 2009 08:51:01 -0700 "Dehler, Bernie"
<bernie.dehler@intel.com> writes:
> I was thinking about "the problem of evil" when eating my pear. It
> was yummy.
>
> Atheists say that if God was all powerful and all loving, there
> wouldn't be any evil in the world, like animal suffering. I was
> thinking- what are the design options for God when it comes to food?
>
> Since killing (and the associated pain) is evil, that means we could
> have no meat- no hamburgers. I guess we'd all have to be
> vegetarians, because vegetables aren't sentient and they don't feel
> pain. But if God chose evolution to create humans, then there would
> also be lower animals. Without carnivores, maybe (actually, for
> sure, not maybe...) these animals would get out-of-balance and
> destroy/over-run everything. In other words, the stock needs to be
> thinned, and that's why evolution does that- with carnivores.
>
> The only alternative to evolution is fiat- where God makes things...
> "poof" into existence. The problem with that is we would have no
> notion of science. We could not trust and use our senses, because
> God so frequently violates natural law. The law of cause-and-effect
> law is busted because it is routinely violated by God.
>
> So in a perfect world, God would create by fiat, but that would
> demolish modern science (and the natural record)... so it's not
> really perfect. God couldn't have used evolution while omitting
> carnivores, because carnivores are needed for the system to
> self-correct.
>
> Thoughts? (...besides the obvious remarks about my cheeky writing
> ;-)
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
____________________________________________________________
Start a hospitality management career with a degree. Get info!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTOjsDNiI1TWss7gwBcLD8uWWK5xfAmg6QHGfisnfovDJA071pKIve/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue May 5 14:38:00 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 05 2009 - 14:38:00 EDT