Well for one I wouldn't be so handsome because it just isn't fair to the rest of you homely looking plain folks.

no unnecessary bad stuff. I'm not talking about evil - I get that people can be evil, I wouldn't expect that to be different. And I get that "bad" weather has its purpose. I wouldn't expect natural disasters to disappear, either. I'm talking about the little accidences of evolution - things that can't possibly have been planned by an intelligent agent, unless that agent had a very cruel and warped sense of humor.

A partial list - fatal allergies, cancer, the flu virus, the cold virus, poisonous plants, bad eyesight, the blind, the deaf, being born with a severe physical or mental handicap, tumors, hemmorroids... you get the idea.

Also, I would have expected Jesus to travel to all parts of the known world at the time, from Scandinavia to Southeast Asia, especially after his supposed resurrection. The fact that his travels were localized to the Middle East is strong evidence that he wasn't divine, but merely another preacher.

Ragnar, doesn't your objections apply only to the assumption that God is 'good'?   I don't think that was in the parameters of what Liz said.

Maybe not, but I was speaking from my own perspective. I would rather believe there are no gods than allow for the possibility that there is a god out there who behaves like a bored adolescent.  

Do I take your statement about Jesus the traveler to be some indication that you think an incarnation to be an obvious thing to look for if there is a God?

Not necessarily obvious, but I would expect that if a god bothered to incarnate himself as human that he would want to speak to as many people as possible, rather than just a small geographic area. If you're not going to make it really obvious who you are, why bother?

no unnecessary bad stuff. I'm not talking about evil - I get that people can be evil, I wouldn't expect that to be different. And I get that "bad" weather has its purpose. I wouldn't expect natural disasters to disappear, either. I'm talking about the little accidences of evolution - things that can't possibly have been planned by an intelligent agent, unless that agent had a very cruel and warped sense of humor.

A partial list - fatal allergies, cancer, the flu virus, the cold virus, poisonous plants, bad eyesight, the blind, the deaf, being born with a severe physical or mental handicap, tumors, hemmorroids... you get the idea.

How do you know these things don't have a purpose?  If I am understanding what you're saying, 150,000 dead from a tsunami is not a sign of a warped sense of humor, but a cold is?  Especially when several of the things on your list are preventable through different human choices.  Asthma and allergies are on the rise and there is a consensus that is because of petro-chemical pollution in the environment.

"No, they are not entirely preventable. They can be contained and treated, but not eliminated. If there were a god, the question is why would he create these things in the first place?"

I don't think you get Liz's point.  Hundreds of thousands of people die every year in car accidents.  Is it God's fault that humans have gone around and built heavy, dangerous, personnel shuttles that have the capability of killing its occupants, pedestrians, or the occupants of other vehicles.  We could walk, if we wanted to, you know.  

Now, the fact is that a lot of the health conditions and problems that we face are not so far off the same thing.  If some people have fatal reactions to peanuts, is it God's fault that they chose to eat the peanut?  Who told humans to walk around eating nuts?  If you examine the food codes in the OT, you quickly come to the conclusion that God apparently did in fact care what people ate.  Is it not possible that he gave those proscriptions because he knew a thing or two about what was good for humans to eat?  If humans choose to eat other things, is that God's fault, too?

Is it God's fault that I can't stomach cyanide?  

Was it God's fault that the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil wasn't exactly fit for human consumption, but they chose to eat it anyway?

I'm reminded of arguments about marijuana.  I had a Christian tell me once that there was no problem with it, since God created 'weed.'  Well, he created mercury, too, but we don't smoke that!

The thing that you would need to keep in mind in relation to your arguments about genetic traits or what not in relation to the Christian God in particular, the Genesis account of a creation is completely consistent and even predicts that the first humans had a 100% flawless genetic code, containing ample variability within that code, while still being 100% functional.

Complaining to me that God lets some poor child die from some genetic problem or interaction with foods we eat, or conditions, or whatever, ignores the fact that in MY worldview, the truth is that God did NOT create the child with that genetic defect.  God created humans perfectly complete, with a 100% robust genetic code.  Adam and Eve screwed that up, not God.  The fact that humans continue to remain as genetically sound as they are today, with all of the racial variety or what not, only means (again, in my worldview) that God produced some pretty darn good initial code.  Let's see if microsoft can build that sort of variability into its code and have it continue to perform well after generations and generations of accumulated mutations!

So, while you might have some argument with a theistic evolutionist, as a special creationist, your argument does not have any weight.  As a special creationist, my view is that God created things pretty darn good, and over time and by the decisions of humans to operate outside of his wise parameters, they've had to suffer the consequences.

BTW, what I have just said is scientifically testable.  Is the genetic code improving, or is it becoming more and more degraded?  Is there a limit to variability before the thing just breaks?  Do we observe a decrease in variability and an increase of accumulated mutations?  The answer to every question but the first is 'yes.'  As far as I know, the first question has not ever been tested.

"You don't get my point. People create cars, people control cars. People did not create any of the things on my list."

But God created the materials in the cars, did he not?

Actually, looking at your list again, you cannot make that statement.  For example, you say 'cancer.'  Uh.... just because smoking cigarrettes can give you cancer and just because God created tobacco doesn't mean that God ever told you to go around smoking the stuff.  However, your comment about how God is at fault that cyanide is poisonous reveals all we need to know about your argument, here.  Ie, its ridiculous.  Even though you started out reasonably enough ("no unnecessary bad stuff. I'm not talking about evil - I get that people can be evil,") but when it all sorts out there cannot be anything poisonous, nothing that hurts us, even if its our own choice to go that way.

In otherwords, right back to the same-oh-same oh, that you can't please an atheist.  You object to 'poisons' but if God made nothing poisonous you'd piss and moan that you've got nothing to kill off your weeds.  There's no pleasing some people.

"I haven't bothered to look, but are peanuts banned in the OT? I wouldn't expect them to be."

Maybe you ought to look.  But that wasn't my point.  My point is that the God of the OT did actually care what people ate, and said something about it, so for you to act as though it was unaddressed by God is disengenous.  

Is it God's fault that I can't stomach cyanide?

If God exists, yes.

I'm just quoting it because its so outrageous.  Nothing more to say.

"I consider that a fiction story. It is irrelevant to this discussion."

But it is relevant if we start talking about the Christian God.  You can't pick and choose which parts of the Bible you're going to allow.  You say "God doesn't care about food allergies!" I say, well, God does appear to care about food.  Does this win any points in your book for the Christian God?  Nope.  You don't need a reason to reject God, that's all just pretense.  If I say, "But look, in this story, God had grand designs for all of creation and it got thwarted, he's no happier than you that people have fatal allergic reactions, it all started at the fall," this doesn't win points in your eyes, either.  To learn that God actually created everything to be wonderful and deathless doesn't score a single point.

 So basically, you just keep rattling off your objections to God, we'll keep showing how they don't apply to the Christian God, and you'll just dismiss these as 'fiction,' while embracing other parts of the story as actual as it suits your fancy to use as a stick against us.

"If god exists, then he is responsible for the deaths of any people who unwittingly consumed mercury."

Perhaps people wouldn't unwittingly consume mercury if other people studied the properties of mercury and didn't try to get away with dumping it into the environment, or, poisoning their spouse for the insurance money.  Just because people find ways to harm each other with elements of creation doesn't mean those parts of creation are bad.

God gave people sex organs.  Men often go around poking women without their consent, something that we call 'rape.'  Is this abuse of the penis the fault of God?  You say yes.  Solutions.... A.  No sex organs...

cue atheists whining about not having anyway to reproduce and dying out in a single generation, or, whining about why all the other creatures should apparently have so much fun....

B.  Sex organs made out of steel...

No, that wouldn't work.  Scratch that thought.

C.  Detaching sensory nerves ...

I could just go on... the solutions to the problem just would create new things for some people to complain about.

"People invented smoking, they did not create mercury or marijuana."

Exactly.

"As far as I can see, the rest of your rambling boiled down to this. In the Genesis story, if Adam and Eve obeyed God, no other humans would have been created."

Wow, that's nuts.  There isn't a single thing that I said that meant that.  Try again.

"Clearly, in the Genesis story, Adam and Eve have to disobey God in order for the rest of the story to even exist."

The rest of our story, yes.  But what makes you think that this is the story God had in mind?  Just because it happened?  Sorry, no.  There is another story that could have existed.

"So what you are effectively saying is that God punished the entire human race because the first two humans figured out how to make more humans, which was a part of God's plan all along.

Tell me again why you worship this sick f--k?"

I can sort of see how you would say that if you thought what I said had anything to do with Adam and Eve learning how to have little kiddies.  That's ridiculous.  Try again.  Maybe the problem is your wtmj-up interpretation of what I said... but I don't think you really read it, which does not please me, either.

Ragnar -

You stated above that you're willing to give God the benefit of the doubt with natural disasters.  I believe you cited possible ecological benefits as a plausible explanation.

How do you know that there aren't benefits to the things you've mentioned?

One of my kids was complaining about something his brother appeared to be getting away with.  To which I replied, "But you haven't seen the rest of the story yet."

It struck me how often we adults do the same darn thing.  Things don't go our way and we're right there whining like a little kid.

It seems to me that if you're willing to give God the benefit of the doubt with regard to human free will and evil, natural disasters, and things you can see a possible benefit to, why not give him the benefit of the doubt with the things you just haven't seen the rest of the story yet?

I know of people who battle serious physical limitations from birth.  They all say their life is much richer because of their limitations and they wouldn't trade anything - if given the opportunity.  

Can any of us really say we'd want something different in our life?  I used to wish I wasn't an alcoholic.  I'm not anymore since God delivered me, but that's a soap-box sidebar.  Anyway, I hated having to go to AA meetings.  I felt like I got the genetic short end of the stick.  But, if it weren't for AA I wouldn't have met my husband.  I wouldn't have my children.  I love the three of them to pieces and can't imagine life without them so if it took alcoholism to get me here, well, it was worth it.  How do you know these things you called "unnecessary evil" aren't actually necessary?

Another perspective on it - it seems to kind of be the law of the universe that there is both good and evil.  Rain and sun.  Joy and sorrow.  Why would nature itself be exempt from this equalibrium?

It'd probably look just the way it is now. I couldn't imagine a better arrangement, actually...

When you say you are agnostic, what do you mean? We've had another poster here recently who claimed to be atheist but was actually about as hardcore theist as they come.

You can't imagine a better world than this one? You see no problem with innocent children starving to death?

I mean that I'm undecided: that I don't believe in (G/g)od(s), but don't positively believe that (G/g)od(s) does not exist, either. Further, I don't particularly think it's possible to know whether or not (G/g)od(s) exist or not.

How is it possible "to know" that a putative entity is nonexistent? IMO, by stating that you think it's impossible (or even, highly unlikely) to know that a putative entity exists, you are effectively asserting that you believe that it doesn't exist.

Otherwise, it's not clear at all what you might possibly mean if you say that any putative entity (say, the luminous ether, for example) is nonexistent.

What I mean is this: The reason that we believe the ether to be nonexistent is not because we've found evidence for its nonexistence. The reason that we believe the ether to be nonexistent is because we can find no evidence for its existence.

And I mean nothing more than that. Why? Because I question the idea that we might appreciate "good" in the same way as we do now, were there not "evil" to highlight its existence.

This smacks very strongly of theistic belief, nevertheless. . .

You misunderstand my point. By the example of the starvation of innocent children I mean to highlight the problem of gratuitous suffering. Death is fine and dandy. It serves a purpose -- but what purpose is served by the days or weeks or sometimes even years of horrendous suffering before death finally comes? How does that needless suffering enable the sufferer (who eventually dies at the end of his suffering) to better appreciate a joy that he never lives to know?

And in this your best of all possible worlds, where is justice? Why must the innocent and the good suffer at all? Why not only the wicked? Why instead is suffering and injustice randomly distributed among the good and the bad, the believer and the nonbeliever, as one would expect they would be in a world unknown to any benevolent god?

I have a real problem with anyone who believes that this is the best of all possible worlds. If you really believe that, then you must believe that those of us who would try to better it are fools.

How is it possible "to know" that a putative entity is nonexistent?

Exactly.

IMO, by stating that you think it's impossible (or even, highly unlikely) to know that a putative entity exists, you are effectively asserting that you believe that it doesn't exist.

Not quite.

I said: I don't believe (positively, asserting belief) that it exists. I then further added that I do not (I here add "yet") believe (positively, asserting belief) that it does not exist.

I then add my resigned allowance that it's probably unlikely to know in either direction, i.e. we can't be certain of it. That does not mean I believe it doesn't exist, it's simply that I believe it unlikely that we'll ever definitely know.

To add to that answer, I also think it unlikely that I'll ever come to a definite conclusion myself (i.e. deciding which, if any, path is most reasonable). However, I fully intend to try. If it's a futile effort, I'll probably end up spending the remainder of my life agnostic, though I suspect in such a case I'd lean closer to atheism than at present, because I'll have examined the various theistic claims and deemed them inadequately-supported or outright false. Heck, I might even be full-bent atheist by then. I won't know 'til I get there.

Otherwise, it's not clear at all what you might possibly mean if you say that any putative entity (say, the luminous ether, for example) is nonexistent.

What I mean is this: The reason that we believe the ether to be nonexistent is not because we've found evidence for its nonexistence. The reason that we believe the ether to be nonexistent is because we can find no evidence for its existence.

Indeed, but the difference is: for the ether, we've actually gone up as far as we can go and looked for it. We therefore find no evidence, upon looking into the matter, for the ether's existence; we have positive mental reason to reject the idea. We may still find ourselves proven wrong, if in future we go higher and crash into that mythical substance, but at present we have all reason to reject and no reason to accept.

I, on the other hand, have not gone up into space (so to speak) to look for the (figurative) ether. I have no mental reason to toss out the idea yet. I may, upon investigation, reject the idea; or I may find, upon noodling the evidence out for myself, that the most reasonable path would be to accept it, and so then I would. It is not simply a matter of not having found evidence for existence, it's a matter of not having looked, or not having looked thoroughly enough for a satisfactory conclusion. It's a case of having little reason to reject and little reason to accept--an indecisive balance.

Do you understand now?

This smacks very strongly of theistic belief, nevertheless. . .

Maybe so. I've thought of that myself.

You misunderstand my point. By the example of the starvation of innocent children I mean to highlight the problem of gratuitous suffering. Death is fine and dandy. It serves a purpose -- but what purpose is served by the days or weeks or sometimes even years of horrendous suffering before death finally comes? How does that needless suffering enable the sufferer (who eventually dies at the end of his suffering) to better appreciate a joy that he never lives to know?

Meh heh... you think on too small a scale. I'm not talking individuals, here, but the overall arrangement of the universe. I'm not talking of what one person may feel--for what's a single, insignificant human being, in the grand scheme of things? a speck, and nothing but a speck--but what all human beings collectively feel, collectively think, collectively act... how those thoughts and feelings and actions interweave into the tapestry of the world and universe (and in themselves are only a small part of it).

In other words, it's not necessarily about the one who does the suffering, not all the time. No, it's about everyone. Sometimes people get the short end of the deal--that's life, too bad, so sad... it happens. No getting 'round it. Gives us all the more reason to appreciate the fact that we get a better bargain. That may sound cold, but there it is.

And in this your best of all possible worlds,

No, best that I can imagine, not best of all possible. I don't assume I've thought of everything, that'd be arrogant.

where is justice?

Well, that's a funny question. It might be a mixture of what happens here and what happens in the hereafter. It might be solely the hereafter. Depends on the god, I suppose. My question is: Who am I, or who are you, to decide what's "justice?"

Why must the innocent and the good suffer at all? Why not only the wicked? Why instead is suffering and injustice randomly distributed among the good and the bad, the believer and the nonbeliever, as one would expect they would be in a world unknown to any benevolent god?

I don't know. Don't ask me. I simply stated that I can't think of a better arrangement. *shrugs* I can't think like an omniscient, how am I supposed to know what one would think?

I have a real problem with anyone who believes that this is the best of all possible worlds. If you really believe that, then you must believe that those of us who would try to better it are fools.

Thing is, we don't, and are powerless to, alter the grand order of the universe. We can better it all we want--the better, the better!--but we can't alter the arrangement. No matter how hard we try, or for how long, we'll never alter anything but ourselves and the consequences of our own actions.

Now if someone were to stand up and say, "I'm going to end suffering for good!" I'd unabashedly say, "That guy's an idiot." Because it's impossible. It's like trying to fall upward in Jupiter's gravity. It doesn't happen. It never will. You can disturb the universe, maybe, but you can't change its nature.