• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What you could do better than god

Roger Ramjets said:
Not that this is relevant. The God I am positing doesn't necessarily care whether we divine His existence from from we what see in nature or not. And my god isn't upset about harmful mutations because they are a necessary part of the mechanism (evolution). My God is isn't squeamish about breaking eggs to make His omelette.
Click to expand...
He'd have a hard time peering out the of gap you've wedged him in anyway.

[ETA] Ninjad
 
HansMustermann said:
For... anyone whose cognitive dissonance resolves that Catholicism is actually compatible with science, please do explain to me is simple words, like to a mentally retarded, how the following are scientific:

- the immaculate conception: Mary was specially created free of the original sin. Actual ex-cathedra papal infallible pronouncement, carrying an automatic anathema (excommunication) if you don't believe it, and generally being by definition incompatible with being Catholic. Where exactly on the human DNA is that original sin? We have sequenced it. Which sequence is the original sin gene?

- Mary's assumption: she was bodily lifted to heavens at the end. Again, the second ex-cathedra papal infallible pronouncement. If you don't believe it, you're incompatible with being a Catholic and automatically damned. So bodily assumption... WHERE? Please do try to come up with a reasonably pseudo-science fiction :p

- Mary got not just to become pregnant without intercourse, but stayed a virgin even after giving birth. Jesus just apparently went right through her, without disturbing her hymen on his way out. Again, actual Catholic dogma. Do be creative.

- Where did Jesus's Y chromosome come from, if no sperm from a male was involved?
Click to expand...

My understanding of RCC dogma is that an ex-cathedra pronouncement has the same status as biblical scripture, ie. that it is allegorically (not literally) true, that its true meaning can only be understood with the help of the holy spirit, and that such divine reading comprehension is only guaranteed to an ordained priest.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
The Hajj is a money maker, not a liability. There's a huge tourism industry to provide all these travelers with the various things they need to make such a trip.
Click to expand...

That sounds like it's a moneymaker for for the tourism industry. Does the government of Saudi Arabia recoup the enormous cost of building a temporary city to house nearly two million inhabitants every year, its security, and the logistics of managing the crowds? (It's probably the tent city is permanent, so all they have to do is maintain it over the year and not rebuild it.)

There are also numerous deaths every Hajj, but they are very low considering the enormous crowds.

My overall point is God seems not to have forseen Islam would become the huge religion that it has, and unwisely mandated a ritual that places an enormous burden on one country.
 
Well, since 2018 Saudi Arabia has a 5% VAT, which the Hajj tourists will have to pay too. That's on top of a Hajj fee (no, literally) of approximately $ 300 and the Zabihah Fee, approximately $ 150. That's straight from the Hajj Ministry (no, literally.) And they're selling tourist packages with such things as getting a global cell phone, courses for the Hajj, etc, which at the very least provides employment.

So I'm guessing at least they're probably not making a loss, is all I'm saying.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
No.

You see, like those game shows the judge's decision is final even if the correct answer is later found out to be different. They were 'genuine' miracles at the time. Now science tells us different, but once a miracle is on the books it cannot be revoked.


Papal infallibility
Click to expand...

And that is one more reason why nobody should ever believe a word the church says. "Believe us, even when we're wrong, we're actually right."
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Yes.

The population is too high because people have been 'sinning', so God built in a way to get it down 'naturally'. Pretty gruesome huh? (my mother died of melanoma and I may very well carry the same gene). Or perhaps it's not that at all. Perhaps that gene will one day be the savior of mankind. Or perhaps mankind isn't even the thing that needs saving.

Whatever the reason, if there was a creator god who made the Universe the way it is, that gene is a part of His creation even if He didn't know it was going to occur. Maybe this God was quite satisfied just knowing that evolution would do its thing, and He is simply waiting for something useful to come out of it. That's how we are using computers now with genetic algorithms.

It's also how the scientists I work with attempt to create new breeds of fruit tree. Last year I was involved in raising 60,000 plants from seed, which we then had to throw away because none of them showed the anti-pest trait they were looking for (and yes, it was quite distressing ripping all those healthy little trees out of their pots after all the nurturing we gave them, but that's just the nature of my job. Playing God isn't always fun).

That's right.

But why stop there? Here we are some hundred thousand+ years after that first human got sick, wondering why nobody ever died of anything since then. Seems strange that other animals die of diseases but we don't, but that's just the way it is - no need to presume God did it. Right?

Not that this is relevant. The God I am positing doesn't necessarily care whether we divine His existence from from we what see in nature or not. And my god isn't upset about harmful mutations because they are a necessary part of the mechanism (evolution). My God is isn't squeamish about breaking eggs to make His omelette.
Click to expand...

Why would a perfect being create a painful, extremely destructive and long lasting disease to control human population levels? And why would this method be so bad at doing so?

A god as you describe it would be able to create a humane procreation system to allow population to be maintained at a stable and large enough level.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Why would a perfect being create a painful, extremely destructive and long lasting disease to control human population levels? And why would this method be so bad at doing so?
Click to expand...
I don't know. If it did one presumes it had a reason, but this doesn't mean it did it deliberately. Perhaps it's just a side-effect of whatever the being is working towards.

But I have to take issue with your use of the word 'perfect'. Any god is by definition a perfect example of that god. We can't apply our standards of perfection to it in order to prove it can't exist.

A god as you describe it would be able to create a humane procreation system to allow population to be maintained at a stable and large enough level.
Click to expand...
According to you. But how do you know that?

We know that the nature of the Universe is dependent on certain 'universal constants' which if they varied by a tiny amount would result in a very different Universe. If the Universe was created by a god then this sensitivity is part of the design. We also know that planets capable of developing life are very rare. It took 13.5 billion years for our planet to evolve and produce us. For all we know, this may be the minimum time for such a thing to occur, and any meddling could have spoiled it. We also don't know that we are the end game (evidence suggests not).

As we learn more about the Universe it's becoming more plain that humans are only a very small part of it. It's also becoming plain to theists that they cannot hold on to literal interpretations of their ancient writings. Scholars today pretty much agree that the Christian Bible is almost entirely intended to be allegory rather than historical fact, just like other myths and legends of the time.

The RCC says that the 'truths' in the Bible are not scientific, and that science has sway over any unscientific interpretation. The biblical miracles are dogma, but do not usurp physical science. In the future this will advance to the point where the entire Bible becomes little more than a collection of parables. It will then become even more clear that God is a moral principle, not a physical entity. As such God will be understood to have whatever 'perfection' is required to fill that role.
 
Last edited:
Papal infallibility is frequently misunderstood. It does not mean that every word that proceeds from the Pope's Papal Piehole is considered infallible.
 
arthwollipot said:
Papal infallibility is frequently misunderstood. It does not mean that every word that proceeds from the Pope's Papal Piehole is considered infallible.
Click to expand...

I think its only considered "infallible" when the pope is pronouncing ex-cathedra on matters of faith and morals.
 
Tassman said:
I think its only considered "infallible" when the pope is pronouncing ex-cathedra on matters of faith and morals.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The number of statements that have been made ex cathedra and are therefore considered papally infallible is very, very limited. One source I saw years ago (can't remember it now) is that it has verifiably happened seven times in the church's history, but definitions have varied over the years and there may be some disagreement.

Regardless, as I said, not every word that proceeds from the papal pie hole is infallible.
 
arthwollipot said:
Exactly. The number of statements that have been made ex cathedra and are therefore considered papally infallible is very, very limited. One source I saw years ago (can't remember it now) is that it has verifiably happened seven times in the church's history, but definitions have varied over the years and there may be some disagreement.

Regardless, as I said, not every word that proceeds from the papal pie hole is infallible.
Click to expand...

Yes. One such ex cathedra pronouncement was that of the Blessed Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven. I was amused that the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time commented that this was indeed "an assumption". :)
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Exactly. The number of statements that have been made ex cathedra and are therefore considered papally infallible is very, very limited. One source I saw years ago (can't remember it now) is that it has verifiably happened seven times in the church's history, but definitions have varied over the years and there may be some disagreement.
Click to expand...

Just for elaborating on minute detailed sake, yes, about that many would qualify according to the criteria, but only two were made after the proclamation and definition of papal infallibility. Before that it was kinda just assumed that that's the case for the pope. In fact, defining papal infallibility as a new thing was more about damage control by reducing what qualifies, than anything else.

NB, though, while everyone in the meantime focuses on the pope, it's ignoring a lot of council proclamations that not only equally qualify, but are STILL official doctrine. So it's a bit like saying that I'm not a die-hard anti-vaxxer because only this and that from Trump really qualify, but trying to slip under the radar a whole tome of other anti-vax CTs I still believe. Anyone thinking that no, they're scientific because they limited what counts as infallible from the Pope, but not the rest of official doctrine, is literally putting forth that stupid a proposition.
 
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets said:
I don't know. If it did one presumes it had a reason, but this doesn't mean it did it deliberately. Perhaps it's just a side-effect of whatever the being is working towards.

But I have to take issue with your use of the word 'perfect'. Any god is by definition a perfect example of that god. We can't apply our standards of perfection to it in order to prove it can't exist.

.
Click to expand...

What reason is there for a perfect being not to create anperfect world? Apart from malicious cruelty, I can find none.

Oh and if you have issue with me describing your god as perfect, take it up with your religious leaders, I am simply using christianity's description of their invisible friend.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
What reason is there for a perfect being not to create anperfect world? Apart from malicious cruelty, I can find none.
Click to expand...
I think the answer would be that this IS a perfect world, that is, perfect for God's purpose, not perfect for us. The reasoning is simple: for a child, a perfect world would be one in which his parents would let him eat whatever he wants, go to sleep whenever he wants. If his parents loved him, why wouldn't they let him do that? A child could design a much better world than his parents, according to the child. The issue is how 'better' is being defined by the child and by the parents.
 
GDon said:
I think the answer would be that this IS a perfect world, that is, perfect for God's purpose, not perfect for us. The reasoning is simple: for a child, a perfect world would be one in which his parents would let him eat whatever he wants, go to sleep whenever he wants. If his parents loved him, why wouldn't they let him do that? A child could design a much better world than his parents, according to the child. The issue is how 'better' is being defined by the child and by the parents.
Click to expand...

If this world is perfect, why is everything so imperfect?

And please christers, stop avoiding my question through your equivocations. Give a straight answer for once.
 
GDon said:
Is it? Don't you mean, imperfect for you?


I'm not a Christian.
Click to expand...

Well any creator that made a universe with such suffering and with lifeforms with such poor design features either is incompetent or enjoys the suffering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom