The consequences of an intelligent designer

It depends on what you mean by "insignificant" doesn't it? If you mean size, well, it's relative. If you mean that the ceiling in my house should behold the furniture, then I would ask, why?Yet people behold them.The question is; is God a person?I always wondered what it meant that because we are insignificant on a universal scale, that that should mean we would be to God.If God is a consciousness, and we are, and nothing else is, then what on earth has scale got to do with it?To add; The tampering of God might come by the request of a person, possibly. Also, "doing a better job of it" might be meaningless subjective opinion to God.It depends on the premise set down. That perception can so easily be done away with, if God sees all life as morally inferior because it will do anything for it's survival. God could then have mercy, but all obligations you think God has, would mean nothing at all, logically.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

You have to understand that I have had many deep intellectual thoughts about the whole picture, because these questions cause my own faith to have trouble.You're quite right to mention the individual organism. The IO is a victim of it's own selfish genes. That is, the individual starves because in the past, cruel selfish survival of species at al costs, led to that consequent.What does this mean? It means that the causing factor is evolution. I have been told so many times that evolution is cruel. I agree. I've been told so many times that evolution is random and can happen without God. I agree.My belief is that God has nothing to do with evolution and animals. He didn't force them to eat eachother in the beginning.All this means, objectively, and technically (and COLDLY), is that logically, God isn't to blame. Logically, the causing factor is evolution. This is why I detest the name "evolutionist", because it implies that I favour something abhorrent.In my theology, God isn't in the nature of species. He is in the spirit of man. My beliefs hold that Christ proved this, because he rebuked and denied himself the nature of the flesh and it's selfish mysteries.But you forget that I said that God can answer the request of the individual, to override the system in place. I believe this is so, but cannot prove it. That's your own way of seeing it. From God's perspective, that of eternal standpoint, all is not lost no matter how bad it seems to us.It's like when people get through something and survive for weeks without food and they're injured etc.. at that present time, the person cannot see past that moment of hurt. God can.Think! Logically, from God's perspective, there are only two good outcomes.
1. The person dies and goes to paradise
2. The person lives.In the case of staring children - they have bad lives. This is why God says, "THEIRS is the kingdom of heaven". But fair enough Gasby, if you don't believe they go to paradise after that shit life, then fair enough. Fair enough if you think it was all for nothing.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

I said; That's my only point. God is not obliged to act on behalf of us, because in this present system, we are animals. It's not that God looks down on us, it's just that his is omni-benevolent. he has empathy with us, I believe, and can answer prayer. The cold vulcan in me sees it from an objective point of view. Remind me,... who are sheep? You and I don't know who belongs to those categories. Yes, I came far, on one issue which didn't mean that much to me. Evolution and creation. On this board that can be seen as an overwhelming life change, but I assure you, it was a small change really, because mostly I am the same as I ever was.It's a shame you lost your faith. What was the primary causing factor. Is it suffering on earth? I understand. I don't blame you for losing your faith and I can understand why that can happen. At one stage I didn't believe for about two months. All I mean by I.O, is the starving individual, or any individual member of a species.I haven't suffered. But the question is, can suffering and God, exist at the same time.All of my musings are only beliefs. Hypothetical house 0f card typed scenarios. I am not claiming I know anything, it's just my theology.

You say God is omnipotent and knows nothing of survival, yes?The starving child, for example, is a victim of his parents. In those poor countries, no one forces them to have sex and therefore have kids.They have 1. The knowledge about suffering. 2. Omnipotence, in regards to having children.Yet what do they do? They do it anyway.now don't take this as an attack on the poor because it isn't, but what it does suggest is true, is what I was mentioning about flesh, and the selfish gene. Here, the flesh overrides the will/spirit.They know what a shit life their children have. They then have children.God sees life as morally inferior to him because it is. This doesn't mean he's a jerk, because he still died on the cross for lifeforms. It means his will overrides the flesh, and he does spiritual things not fleshly things. Your flesh tells you in impatience, and ignorance of God, that he is wrong. My spirit, in patience, tells me not to judge God based on emotion.The Nt can tell you more about the nature of God. Patience, CHARITY, etc.I know yu want God to be the bad guy, but that's your subjective emotional opinion. My opinion is objective on the matter - I'm not thinking and thinking and thinking about SUFFERING, I'm seeing the whole matter from a logical perspective. That's all.I'm not saying you're wrong. Perhaps God doesn't exist because of suffering. But you have to apreciate that my belief system incorporates a whole ideology with a whole different set of premisses than other peoples'.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

It's facts Jar. They know what life is like there, they have the full power to not have children.Are those two assertions false?Would you agree with Gasby that God is ajerk, then? *confused*
What's your take on suffering?

Even if those factors are true, they don't negate the two facts.God is omnipotent. As Gasby said.
God has no knowledge of suffering apparently.People create people.
Poor people know suffering.Gasby implied that God was not empathetic because he was omnipotent and can stop suffering but doesn't (in similar words). Since people are in charge when it comes to creating people, then this means that people are the same by this logic.I'm taking part in the process of reductio ad absurdum, which takes another's argument, and shows it's implications.--So if God's a jerk, people are. If people aren't jerks, then God isn't.--If there are no children, then children can't suffer.The fact is that those poor people are in it bad and have been for generations. Not having children would logically mean that future suffering would not happen. PERIOD.If they're willing to risk suffering, then perhaps they would reason that I ws correct in noting that God can see past the hurt. Maybe they can see past the hurt too.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Didn't you read the part that shown this, accoring to my musings, Dan? And I have adequately proved that my words don't implicate that God is a jerk. Thanks, Ill allow you to be an argumentative ass hat who supports female seeking missiles despite the suffering they cause. (only kidding) I've no time for irrelevant academics.But you're quite right, I'm awful in every way. I agree when you say that I'm an ass and that you think God's a jerk.

not really, but humans usually come to this despite their denial of it.I just wondered why Orang disagreed with me on this one. It's moot because I don't. Your intention is to render my God a jerk.The gist of my post dealt with what you did say about God not being empathetic, and the implications of your argument.

When someone says "implied" or (similar words), that usually means they are trying to not mis-represent you.

I'm sorry if I was unintentionally mis-representing you.Do you hate me now? You don't hold grudges because we had one debate do you?

It's a third choice called a false dichotomy. You have to prove that if not this then then that. How can X know how to B, because to be B2 the risk of Z must be real.

​

X has no risk of Z therfore doesn't know how to B.You equivocated, and show B as the same as B2, but it's slightly different!(begging the question)The correct conclusion is that X doesn't need to try and survive, NOT that he doesn't know how.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.