The human back is, we are told, an evolutionary disaster

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 21, 2019

Human evolution, Intelligent Design, Medicine

2}_{Categories
Human evolution
Intelligent Design
Medicine}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Everyone who lives long enough is likely to experience back pain. And the cause isn’t just aging. We have evolution to blame for a spine that’s an engineering nightmare. Cheddar Explores how our spines changed to accommodate human bipedalism.

But the real villain is hands and opposable thumbs, right? They’re part and parcel of all the bad stuff humans do. The back pain is incidental.

Naturalism (nature is all there is), often called “materialism,” is a religion that requires us to believe some strange things.

More on bipedality/bipedalism: Paleontologist: Humans walked on two legs from the beginning Carol Ward: It seems to be a behavior that was present in some of the earliest members of our branch of the family tree. It represented what was really the initial major adaptive change from any apelike creature that came before us.

Researchers: Supernova prompted humans to walk upright Funny, if bipedalism originated in a global catastrophe, that it never occurred to any other primate to resolve the problem by becoming fully bipedal. But keep thinking. Resist groupthink.

Bipedalism: Regulatory area cent.com/intelligent-design/bipedalism-regulatory-area-missing-in-humans/” target=”another”>missing in humans

Researcher: To Understand Human Bipedalism, Stop Assuming “A Chimpanzee Starting Point”

Rough terrain caused humans to start walking upright

Early bipedalism walked no straight line

We’ve also heard that bipedalism developed so we could hit each other. Or carry infants. Or scarce resources. Or save energy. Or cool down. But mainly so we could have our hands free for whatever. (Saving eneregy and cooling down don’t really count here because lots of other methods would have worked; they just wouldn’t have freed the hands at the same time.)

See also “I’m Walkin’, Yes Indeed I’m Walkin’” But Not Because It’s Necessarily a Better Way to Get Around

Also, Design perspectives and the physiology of walking

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Seversky:
Reconciling poor design with a being who shouldn’t have to do that is the problem.
Reconciling you with a thinking human is a problem
We have a genetic code which is prone to mutation.
LoL! The genetic code is NOT prone to mutation. And we were designed with the ability to adapt and evolve to fill niches so genetic change was designed. Seversky is obviously a willfully ignorant troll on an agenda. Extant humans were NOT the intelligently designed humans. Seversky is obviously just a dolt.ET_{July 25, 2019
July
07
Jul
25
25
2019
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

Seversky at 55, I anticipated your response. See post 48 for a more complete explanation of the irresolvable contradiction in your worldview. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-human-back-is-we-are-told-an-evolutionary-disaster/#comment-681350bornagain77_{July 25, 2019
July
07
Jul
25
25
2019
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT}

Jammer @ 53
Ah, the quality of design argument. One of my favorite Darwinist arguments. It’s just so damn easy to turn around on them. Watch this . . . Premise I: If bad design is evidence against intelligent design, then good design must be evidence for it. Premise II: The amount of good (brilliant, really) design in life easily outweighs the bad. Conclusion: The quality of life’s design provides more evidence for than against the intelligent design position. The I.D. position is strengthened.
That would be fine if we were just talking about LGM (Little Green Men) designers, extraterrestrial intelligences somewhat more advanced than we are but far from God-like in their knowledge and powers. But we aren't. And we all know that we aren't. We are talking about the all-knowing, all-powerful God of Christianity. Reconciling poor design with a being who shouldn't have to do that is the problem. You may be relatively fit and healthy now but that may not always be the case. We have a genetic code which is prone to mutation. In some cases, that can lead to cancers. Some cancers occur in parts of the body where they are often not detected until they are well-established or even spread. As I noted before, the human reproductive system has a natural miscarriage rate of 15-50%, billions of lives cut short at the very earliest stages of development. There are a range of genetic disorders apart from cancers. There are auto-immune diseases where the immune system attacks the body it is supposed to be protecting. Need I go on?
As for our Darwinist friends . . . I’d tell them to go back to where they came from...
Not the best choice of words in the current political situation although I'm sure it goes back a long ways.. No doubt the Native Americans felt the same about our colonial forebears when they came in and took the land they had lived on for thousands of years.Seversky_{July 24, 2019
July
07
Jul
24
24
2019
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @ 41
as to: Seversky at 32 presupposes that God would never, via the free will of man, allow evil to enter the world. Seversky’s argument basically boils down to this No, I was simply noting, as so many have before, that the existence of evil and human suffering is inconsistent with an all-loving Creator.
For crying out loud that is exactly what you are repeatedly arguing. How your head does not explode from such logical contradictions I have no idea.
You've lost me. Exactly what logical contradiction are we talking about?Seversky_{July 24, 2019
July
07
Jul
24
24
2019
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

https://www.catholic.com/audio/caf/why-evolution-doesnt-eliminate-god-part-1?utm_source=Catholic%20Answers%20Daily&utm_campaign=0264027be1-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_07_19_10_17&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6b4f9e3af2-0264027be1-213039785&mc_cid=0264027be1&mc_eid=7a9c50f131 I got this about the exact same time this post hit but they make a few good points. Such as random mutation does presuppose a design system it’s worth a listen toAaronS1978_{July 24, 2019
July
07
Jul
24
24
2019
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

Ah, the quality of design argument. One of my favorite Darwinist arguments. It's just so damn easy to turn around on them. Watch this . . . Premise I: If bad design is evidence against intelligent design, then good design must be evidence for it. Premise II: The amount of good (brilliant, really) design in life easily outweighs the bad. Conclusion: The quality of life's design provides more evidence for than against the intelligent design position. The I.D. position is strengthened. And let's not overlook how much poor lifestyle choices damage our bodies. So much so-called bad design is really little more than improper personal care. If you stuff your body with garbage and spend far too much time sitting on your butt, then yeah, chances are your back is going to mess up. It's like buying an i8, never changing its water or oil, and then blaming BMW for "bad design" when the motor goes wonky. I'm 31 years old. I've lived a (mostly) healthy lifestyle. My body works fine, with minimal aches and pains. That's what happens when your treat your body with respect, not like it's a garbage disposal. As for our Darwinist friends . . . I'd tell them to go back to where they came from, but traveling back to the 19th century is impossible. I guess we're stuck with them.Jammer_{July 24, 2019
July
07
Jul
24
24
2019
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

Actually I really can’t conceive of any other system outside of it the reason why is the same concept behind the blind leading the blind and to be terribly honest with you there’s a lot to be learned from evil which I hate to say that but it’s true. But the funny part is the very thing that you speak of does exist at least in Christian theology and it’s called heaven And the other is called hell and I’m stuck in the middle with you ha ha Clowns to the left of me jokers to the right and I’m stuck in the middle with you. I’m sorry I hope I got that song stuck in everybody’s headAaronS1978_{July 24, 2019
July
07
Jul
24
24
2019
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT}

As to theodicy in general, I have always found this following quote to be exceptionally powerful.
The Problem of Evil by Benjamin D. Wiker - April 2009 Excerpt: We still want to cry, Job-like, to those inscrutable depths, "Who are you to orchestrate everything around us puny and pitiable creatures, leaving us shuddering in the darkness, ignorant, blasted, and buffeted? It‘s all well and good to say, ‘Trust me! It‘ll all be made right in the end,‘ while you float unscathed above it all. Grinding poverty, hunger, thirst, frustration, rejection, toil, death of our loved ones, blood-sweating anxiety, excruciating pain, humiliation, torture, and finally a twisted and miserable annihilation — that‘s the meal we‘re served! You‘d sing a different tune if you were one of us and got a taste of your own medicine." What could we say against these depths if the answer we received was not an argument but an incarnation, a full and free submission by God to the very evils about which we complain? This submission would be a kind of token, a sign that evil is very real indeed, bringing the incarnate God blood-sweating anxiety, excruciating pain, humiliation, torture, and finally a twisted and miserable annihilation on the cross. As real as such evil is, however, the resurrection reveals that it is somehow mysteriously comprehended within the divine plan. With the Incarnation, the reality of evil is absorbed into the deity, not dissolved into thin air, because God freely tastes the bitterness of the medicine as wounded healer, not distant doctor. Further, given the drastic nature of this solution, we begin to recognize that God takes the problem of evil more seriously than we could ever have taken it ourselves. ,,, http://www.crisismagazine.com/2009/the-problem-of-evil
bornagain77_{July 23, 2019
July
07
Jul
23
23
2019
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

ET, "To “them” there isn’t any evil, just survival and reproduction. " It is actually much worse than that for Darwinian atheists. Not only is atheistic materialism in and of itself completely amoral, but when coupled with Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' mechanism,, i.e. "survival and reproduction",,,
“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
,,, when the amorality of atheistic materialism is coupled with Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' mechanism, then the amorality inherent in atheistic materialism actually becomes downright anti-morality. Self sacrificial morally noble behavior of any sort is simply completely antithetical to Darwin's survival of the fittest' mechanism. Whereas, on the other hand, selfishness, greed, (not to mention blind, pitiless, indifference to the suffering of others), is apparently rewarded. As you know, Dawkin's himself had a book entitled "The Selfish Gene". Thus, if Darwinian evolution were actually true, which thank God it isn't, then the evil that would actually be present in this world would be very much comparable to the unimaginable evil that is present in hell itself. ,,, If Darwinists had to actually face such evil as their theory actually entails, Darwinists would be begging to have this world back.
Bill Wiese (Man Who Went To Hell) - 23 Minutes in Hell (8 Minute Version) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqufixPt2w0
bornagain77_{July 23, 2019
July
07
Jul
23
23
2019
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

Well said, bornagain77 and Dr. Egnor! You are right. To "them" there isn't any evil, just survival and reproduction. There are things that may help with that, things that are neutral and things that hinder it. They just are. Whatever gets you there is all ~~good~~ evolutionary acceptable. :cool: Are you alive? and Have you reproduced? Are the only two questions that matter. So to admit that evil exists means that something is getting through.ET_{July 23, 2019
July
07
Jul
23
23
2019
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT}

definition: Theodicy noun the vindication of divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil.
It is the height of insanity for atheists, on the one hand, to adamantly maintain that all morality is subjective and illusory, and then in direct contradiction to that foundational belief they hold as being true, on the other hand insist that their personal sense of objective morality is so refined that it is good enough to overturn 2000 years of Christian theodicy. As Dr. Egnor stated, "Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,"
The Universe Reflects a Mind – Michael Egnor – February 28, 2018 Excerpt: Goff argues that a Mind is manifest in the natural world, but he discounts the existence of God because of the problem of evil. Goff seriously misunderstands the problem of evil. Evil is an insoluble problem for atheists, because if there is no God, there is no objective standard by which evil and good can exist or can even be defined. If God does not exist, “good” and “evil” are merely human opinions. Yet we all know, as Kant observed, that some things are evil in themselves, and not merely as a matter of opinion. Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-universe-reflects-a-mind/
And to repeat what CS Lewis, a former atheist, stated,
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” – C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Thus the atheist's ‘argument from evil’ fails precisely because it is impossible for evil to even exist unless there is first an perfect standard of moral goodness that had been departed from. Specifically, in their argument from evil atheists maintain that “There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering”
The Problem of Evil: Still A Strong Argument for Atheism - 2015 Excerpt:,,, the problem of evil, one of the main arguments against the existence of an all-good and all-knowing God.,,, P1. There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering for which we can see no greater purpose or compensating good. P2. If an all-powerful, all-good God existed, then such horrific, apparently purposeless evils would not exist. C. Therefore, an all-powerful, all-good God does not exist. https://thegodlesstheist.com/2015/10/13/the-problem-of-evil-still-a-strong-argument-for-atheism/
But again this is self defeating position for the atheists to be in. As David Wood puts it,, By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil.
Responding to the Argument From Evil: Three Approaches for the Theist - By David Wood Excerpt: Interestingly enough, proponents of AE grant this premise in the course of their argument. By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil. Amazingly, then, even as atheists make their case against the existence of God, they actually help us prove that God exists!,,, https://www.namb.net/apologetics/responding-to-the-argument-from-evil-three-approaches-for-the-theist
Bottom line, if objective morality really does exist, as the atheist must necessarily presuppose in his 'argument from evil', (and as he must also necessarily presuppose in any argument about theodicy that he may wish to make), then God necessarily exists:
If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists: – Peter Kreeft – Prager University – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliyujhwhNM
A few more notes
The Moral Argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU What is the Moral Argument for the Existence of God? - video https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/interviews-panels/what-is-the-moral-argument-for-the-existence-of-god-bobby-conway/
And again, I hold Christian theodicy to be far and away the most coherent theodicy of any Theistic tradition. To repeat, Jesus himself overcame evil with good: As theologian James Stewart stated in one of his sermons, “He (Jesus) did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.”
“He did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.” ~James Stewart~ ——————————— “It is a glorious phrase of the New Testament, that ‘he led captivity captive.’ The very triumphs of His foes, it means, he used for their defeat. He compelled their dark achievements to sub-serve his end, not theirs. They nailed him to the tree, not knowing that by that very act they were bringing the world to his feet. They gave him a cross, not guessing that he would make it a throne. They flung him outside the gates to die, not knowing that in that very moment they were lifting up all the gates of the universe, to let the King of Glory come in. They thought to root out his doctrines, not understanding that they were implanting imperishably in the hearts of men the very name they intended to destroy. They thought they had defeated God with His back (to) the wall, pinned and helpless and defeated: they did not know that it was God Himself who had tracked them down. He did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.” James Stewart (1896–1990) was a minister of the Church of Scotland
Verses:
Romans 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Revelation 21:4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
bornagain77_{July 23, 2019
July
07
Jul
23
23
2019
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

Oh my.
Admittedly, juxtaposing vile, evil acts makes it easier to teach us the value of “good”, but why would an omniscient, omnipotent, loving God have to resort to that.
How can we not make fun of people for blaming God for we have sown?
I’m not trying to be a jerk, this is one of the pivotal issues about “God“ that swung me towards atheism.
Yes, ignorance and the inability to think lead people to atheism. You are a fine example of that. Thank you.ET_{July 23, 2019
July
07
Jul
23
23
2019
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

AaronS1978@45, I understand the concept, but do you really think that God couldn’t establish a system that allows us to appreciate good without inflicting evil? I am pretty sure that I can appreciate respect for others without killing millions of Jews, shooting up schools, killing people from a hotel room in Vegas. Admittedly, juxtaposing vile, evil acts makes it easier to teach us the value of “good”, but why would an omniscient, omnipotent, loving God have to resort to that. I’m not trying to be a jerk, this is one of the pivotal issues about “God“ that swung me towards atheism. Well, that and the lack of compelling evidence, and the luxury of sleeping late on Sundays. :)Brother Brian_{July 23, 2019
July
07
Jul
23
23
2019
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

It is literally the same principle as the absence of light means the presence of darkness. that’s why it is constantly reference between good and evil light and darkness Without one you would only be surrounded by the other You never know what the other is like the concept of good is not something that exists without the concept of evil there is an interplay between the two You have to have something to compare it to just like the difference between free will and determinism for you to know that you have one you have to have the other and vice a versaAaronS1978_{July 23, 2019
July
07
Jul
23
23
2019
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

LoL!:
Why do we need evil to appreciate good?
We don't. Why do atheists like erecting so many strawmen?
We don’t need pedophile priests to appreciate someone helping an elderly person across the street.
The devil needs them to get people off of religion.
We don’t need the holocaust or the crusades to appreciate respect for other religions. We didn’t need Columbine or Sandy Hook to appreciate the sacrifice that teachers make.
The devil needs them to sow seeds of doubt. You guys don't seem to know much of anything about the religion you are trying to bash.ET_{July 23, 2019
July
07
Jul
23
23
2019
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

Sev
Yes, I know that is the standard apologist explanation for evil, that the existence of evil is, for some unexplained reason, necessary for the achievement of some greater good.
That is something I have never understood. Why do we need evil to appreciate good? We don’t need pedophile priests to appreciate someone helping an elderly person across the street. We don’t need the holocaust or the crusades to appreciate respect for other religions. We didn’t need Columbine or Sandy Hook to appreciate the sacrifice that teachers make.Brother Brian_{July 23, 2019
July
07
Jul
23
23
2019
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

seversky:
No, I was simply noting, as so many have before, that the existence of evil and human suffering is inconsistent with an all-loving Creator.
And we were noting that is only your ignorant opinion and you have an agenda.
First, why can’t this omniscient God simply explain why it is necessary and second – and more serious – why can’t an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving God bring about this greater good without having to inflict such vast – and it is vast – amounts of suffering on the creatures He professes to love above all things?
How many times does it have to be explained to you? First the strawman- compared to an eternity in Heaven there isn't any such thing as "vast suffering". We LEARN from an imperfect world. We WANTED to be the holders of knowledge. And WE cause the suffering. You have to be quite the desperate ignoramus to try pin that on God. The reward justifies the means. "In the beginning" we didn't want Heaven on Earth and opted for knowledge over blissful ignorance. This is what has come of that.ET_{July 23, 2019
July
07
Jul
23
23
2019
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

as to: Seversky at 32 presupposes that God would never, via the free will of man, allow evil to enter the world. Seversky’s argument basically boils down to this No, I was simply noting, as so many have before, that the existence of evil and human suffering is inconsistent with an all-loving Creator.
For crying out loud that is exactly what you are repeatedly arguing. How your head does not explode from such logical contradictions I have no idea.bornagain77_{July 23, 2019
July
07
Jul
23
23
2019
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @ 32
Seversky at 32 presupposes that God would never, via the free will of man, allow evil to enter the world. Seversky’s argument basically boils down to this
No, I was simply noting, as so many have before, that the existence of evil and human suffering is inconsistent with an all-loving Creator.
As any first year seminary student can see, the fatal flaw in that argument is, of course, the presupposition from atheists that God had no good reason for allowing evil to temporarily exist in this world. Yet, as the “Beatific Vision” demonstrates, God has ample reason for allowing evil to temporarily exist in this world in that in allowing evil to temporarily exist, (much like the way we ourselves willingly suffer hardships in our own lives for a short while so as to bring about a greater good in our own lives), God is, via temporary suffering, bringing about a much greater good in this world. Thus, the atheist’s presupposition that God has no good reason for allowing evil to temporarily exist in this world is simply wrong.
Yes, I know that is the standard apologist explanation for evil, that the existence of evil is, for some unexplained reason, necessary for the achievement of some greater good. Unfortunately, that defense founders on two questions. First, why can't this omniscient God simply explain why it is necessary and second - and more serious - why can't an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving God bring about this greater good without having to inflict such vast - and it is vast - amounts of suffering on the creatures He professes to love above all things?Seversky_{July 23, 2019
July
07
Jul
23
23
2019
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

The English philosopher John Stuart Mill set out the arguments against the concept of God as a designer in one of his Three Essays On Religion:
It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. For what is meant by Design? Contrivance: the adaptation of means to an end. But the necessity for contrivance—the need of employing means—is a consequence of the limitation of power. Who would have recourse to means if to attain his end his mere word was sufficient? The very idea of means implies that the means have an efficacy which the direct action of the being who employs them has not. Otherwise they are not means, but an incumbrance. A man does not use machinery to move his arms. If he did, it could only be when paralysis had deprived him of the power of moving them by volition. But if the employment of contrivance is in itself a sign of limited power, how much more so is the careful and skilful choice of contrivances? Can any wisdom be shown in the selection of means, when the means have no efficacy but what is given them by the will of him who employs them, and when his will could have bestowed the same efficacy on any other means? Wisdom and contrivance are shown in overcoming difficulties, and there is no room for them in a Being for whom no difficulties exist. The evidences, therefore, of Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under limitations; that he was obliged to adapt himself to conditions independent of his will, and to attain his ends by such arrangements as those conditions admitted of.
Seversky_{July 23, 2019
July
07
Jul
23
23
2019
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

An engineer addresses the, "God would only make perfect designs" argument against ID, as follows: - there is no such thing as a perfect design, all designs involve tradeoffs to optimize some set of criteria. - those criteria may include simplicity, cost, time, purpose, starting point, and other non-technical features. - without knowing what the original specifications were, the design cannot be meaningfully assessed. - any design can usually be improved in some way or other, but designers usually stop at "good enough". - as time goes on, a given design may no longer be optimum for changing conditions. Some of these points may apply to the human backbone and its supposed design flaws. As an added note, Genesis does not say God made creation perfect; as a good designer, he just calls it "very good".Fasteddious_{July 23, 2019
July
07
Jul
23
23
2019
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

Seversky at 32 presupposes that God would never, via the free will of man, allow evil to enter the world. Seversky's argument basically boils down to this:
1. If God truly is omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent as is held in Christian theology, then God fore-knew that evil was going to happen in this world and yet He let it happen anyway. 2. Therefore it is God's fault that evil exists in the world. 3. Yet, God, if He truly is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent, as is held by Christians, then He would never allow evil to exist in this world. 4. Therefore the God of Christian theology does not exist since he would never allow evil to exist in this world.
As any first year seminary student can see, the fatal flaw in that argument is, of course, the presupposition from atheists that God had no good reason for allowing evil to temporarily exist in this world. Yet, as the "Beatific Vision" demonstrates, God has ample reason for allowing evil to temporarily exist in this world in that in allowing evil to temporarily exist, (much like the way we ourselves willingly suffer hardships in our own lives for a short while so as to bring about a greater good in our own lives), God is, via temporary suffering, bringing about a much greater good in this world. Thus, the atheist's presupposition that God has no good reason for allowing evil to temporarily exist in this world is simply wrong.
This Theologian Has An Answer To Atheists’ Claims That Evil Disproves God – Jan, 2018 Excerpt: In “The Last Superstition: A Refutation Of The New Atheism,” Feser, echoing Thomas Aquinas, notes that the first premise of the problem of evil is “simply false, or at least unjustifiable.” According to Feser, there is no reason to believe that the Christian God, being all-good and all-powerful, would prevent suffering on this earth if out of suffering he could bring about a good that is far greater than any that would have existed otherwise. If God is infinite in power, knowledge, goodness, etc., then of course he could bring about such a good. Feser demonstrates his reasoning with an analogy. A parent may allow his child a small amount of suffering in frustration, sacrifice of time, and minor pain when learning to play the violin, in order to bring about the good of establishing proficiency. This is not to say that such minimal suffering is in any way comparable to the horrors that have gone on in this world. But the joy of establishing proficiency with a violin is not in any way comparable to the good that God promises to bring to the world. In Christian theology, this good is referred to as the Beatific Vision: the ultimate, direct self-communication of God to the individual. In other words, perfect salvation or Heaven. Feser describes the Beatific Vision as a joy so great that even the most terrible horror imaginable “pales in insignificance before the beatific vision.” As Saint Paul once said, “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.” Your Argument Assumes Its Conclusion I can already see the disciples of the Four Horsemen readying their keyboards, opening a copy of Dawkins’ “The God Delusion,” and preparing their response. An atheist may claim that he cannot possibly imagine anything in the next life that could possibly outweigh the Holocaust, children’s suffering, or any other instance of significant suffering in this world. According to Feser, this response is precisely the reason he states that the problem of evil is “worthless” as an objection to arguments in favor of the existence of the Christian God. The problem is that the only way the atheist can claim that nothing could outweigh the most significant suffering on earth is if he supposes that God does not exist and therefore there is no Beatific Vision. But he cannot presume that God does not exist in the premise of an argument that aims to prove the conclusion that God does not exist. By doing so, he is begging the question, or arguing in a circle, and therefore does not prove anything at all. As Feser goes on to demonstrate, the atheist is essentially stating: “There is no God, because look at all this suffering that no good could possibly outweigh. How do I know there’s no good that could outweigh it? Oh, because there is no God.” http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/03/theologian-answer-new-atheists-claims-existence-evil-disproves-gods/
Verse:
Luke 24:26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and then to enter His glory?”
bornagain77_{July 23, 2019
July
07
Jul
23
23
2019
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT}

Turkish family walks on all fours - but scientists now say they don't move like quadrupedal primates and AREN'T an example of 'reverse evolution' Excerpt: In a report published in PLOS One, the researchers said the family moves laterally - unlike primates, who walk in a diagonal sequence, repeatedly putting a hand on one side and a foot on the other. They claimed the siblings' walk is, in fact, a byproduct of a hereditary condition that causes cerebellar hypoplasia, complicating their sense of balance.,,, 'I was determined to set the record straight, because these erroneous claims about the nature and cause of the quadrupedalism have been published over and over again, without any actual analysis of the biomechanics of their gait, and by researchers who are not experts in primate locomotion,' lead researcher Liza Shapiro, of the University of Texas, told The Washington Post. 'We have shown that the quadrupedalism resembles that of healthy human adults asked to walk quadrupedally in an experimental setting. [They do not] prefer the diagonal sequence/diagonal couplets gait characteristic of nonhuman primates.' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2698298/Turkish-family-walks-fours-scientists-say-dont-like-four-legged-animals-ARENT-example-reverse-evolution.html
bornagain77_{July 23, 2019
July
07
Jul
23
23
2019
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT}

The assumption that all physically-ambulatory humans walk on two legs is untrue, or at least, so says 60 Minutes Australia... Remote village where people walk on all foursjstanley01_{July 23, 2019
July
07
Jul
23
23
2019
02:44 AM
2
02
44
AM
PDT}

Seversky @ 32 I have no insider knowledge of God's purposes, that's for sure. But it seems plain to me that once all is said and done -- after pure grace has been fully bestowed and pure justice rightly meted out -- moving forward and throughout all eternity, no free-will creature is going be able to convince himself that he is right and God is wrong. IOW, our current plight is nothing if not illustrative.jstanley01_{July 23, 2019
July
07
Jul
23
23
2019
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT}

I smell a strawman
If God is the all-knowing, all-powerful Christian version then He would have known exactly how Adam and Eve would behave when faced with temptation.
That God would have known all possible outcomes. Or perhaps you just don't know what you are talking about.
Your God doesn’t make mistakes, He doesn’t overlook anything, He doesn’t occasionally get things wrong so the only explanation for Adam and Eve’s surrender to temptation is that they were behaving exactly as they were designed to behave and God knew it.
You have no idea what transpired. You are just flailing about in your clueless atheistic way. And the sad part is you have yourself convinced that you are making a coherent argument.
So how in the name of fairness and justice can they be blamed for that and, much worse, what possible justification can there be for visiting punishment on their descendants in perpetuity?
What blame? It is what it is. And it cannot be undone. Now it is up to us. Liberals are always thinking about entitlements. And they always get belligerent when they get disappointed. It's like if someone that was really super rich gave you a huge mansion, a lot of money and you just partied it all away. And along the way you and your lady totaled the mansion such that it doesn't exist any more. There isn't any blame to be passed down along with your genes. There are just stories of this fantastic place. There isn't any punishment. You just have to make due without a massive handout. Sure you can be upset that your parents squandered it. But they did tell you that about a way to get back to that lifestyle- the path to Heaven. So which would you focus on- being upset or doing what it takes to get back to it?
But unless you can provide examples or explanations of what they might be, all we have are our own standards to measure what is good or bad design.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Extant organisms and their features are not the designed organisms and features. Extant organisms and their features are the result of many generations worth of genetic entropy. And it just so happens that it drives research that leads to a better understandingET_{July 22, 2019
July
07
Jul
22
22
2019
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

Axel @ 24
Seversky, when atheist scientists, such as your good self,...
I'm very flattered but I'm not actually a scientist of any sort, although I am for all practical purposes an atheist.
… talk about anything created by Almighty God, they must bear in mind that the subject in point, indeed, the whole of Creation, was subject to the extremely deleterious effects of the Fall of man from God’s grace –
The Fall from Grace argument makes no sense at all. If God is the all-knowing, all-powerful Christian version then He would have known exactly how Adam and Eve would behave when faced with temptation. Your God doesn't make mistakes, He doesn't overlook anything, He doesn't occasionally get things wrong so the only explanation for Adam and Eve's surrender to temptation is that they were behaving exactly as they were designed to behave and God knew it. So how in the name of fairness and justice can they be blamed for that and, much worse, what possible justification can there be for visiting punishment on their descendants in perpetuity? It's true that we can only judge design according to the standards we have set for what we design. It's possible a more advanced intelligence might be designing for purposes of which we are as yet unaware. But unless you can provide examples or explanations of what they might be, all we have are our own standards to measure what is good or bad design.Seversky_{July 22, 2019
July
07
Jul
22
22
2019
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

@ET “ET July 22, 2019 at 9:05 am AaronS1978- The pyramids need maintenance and the Great Wall has been repaired many times.” Oh I know, My point is though for anything to last or have a function that continues to have a nearly 100% success rate you effectively have to be a stone. there are so many different factors in our environment that can change the outcome of a design And when we argue about whether something is a good design or a bad design we often don’t take these factors into account and how much they impact When we judge the design of life we are selves never seem to recognize the fact that we are living organisms part of the exact same lifecycle judging whether it is a good sign or a bad design My problem when people argue against life being poorly designed is the fact that we are comparing apples to oranges and we are judging things by a standard that we our selves are subpar on to begin with Like I had ended my last quote we can design a particle collider but we can’t design a single celled organism We are literally comparing apples to oranges our designs pale in comparison to living organisms in every which way shape and form Yet we believe that we can say this is a bad design I don’t think we are smart enough yet to make that comment.AaronS1978_{July 22, 2019
July
07
Jul
22
22
2019
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

Yes, blind faith and a-mats go together. They are inseparable.ET_{July 22, 2019
July
07
Jul
22
22
2019
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Axel
… ‘guess’ being the operative word.
I think “blind faith” is a more accurate term, but “guess” works just as well.Brother Brian_{July 22, 2019
July
07
Jul
22
22
2019
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply