The only question, from an evolutionary perspective is: does it adapt and survive? Bacteria have been successful at this for a thousand to ten thousand times longer than humans.
The reproductive cycle of bacteria is a thousand times faster. Of course it has an evolutionary advantage.
Win win for bacteria... As I said before, no pain no suffering and no worries. But they can't ponder, is that bad in this respect?
Sorry SP. I didn't catch this post until now. It seems that pain and suffering are temporary--other than that which swims within the mind.
But always present in your god's world. So, you Bowser can just accept anything that comes your and your loved ones way as a test from your god. Rest easy it's only cancer. Cancer is God. Is that what you mean when you say everything is God? It's all God.
Humans no doubt create a lot of problems for themselves and other life here on Earth but more often that not we try to fix things and sometimes we succeed.
Bowser don't dodge the question asked in my post# 26: If you dodge again, I will take it that you do see pain and suffering as a test from your god.
I see it as an aspect of life. The question better asked is, how much pain and suffering is unnecessary? How much is enough?
Yes, that is a question for your god to answer about cancer. Yes, that's another question to ask your god about other diseases, why so many?
Playing Devil's Avocado for a moment. I've never seen a paradox in a loving god that allows suffering. For one, I think that the skeptic's concept of an all-loving god is a bit of a strawman. I think that the skeptic interprets "all-loving" as "all-intervening" and therefore invents a paradox as soon as we see humans suffering. In my opinion, there is some self-consistency in a God that creates a world with realistic challenges and gives his subjects free will to make their own decisions. Like a scientist studying mice. He loves them, but that doesn't mean he coddles them. The argument 'why would an all-loving God allow suffering?' is, in my view, a very weak skeptic's argument. Indeed, it is an argument by incredulity - which is one of the very logical fallacies we often accuse theists of committing. 'I can't see the logic here, therefore it can't be true.'
In the world God chose to create children bein raped will suffer an thats realistic… but why is the possibility of children bein raped necessary for a lovin God.???
I'm playing with being told by Bowser that ''God is everything''. And, now to you Dave, what does a god ,who is everything get out of making parts of itself suffer? Bowser, so is god not everything? Is there something that's not of your god, freewill? Is that the bad in the world? Is that where all the bad comes from? Was it the freewill of man that made cancer?
