Was life on Earth created by an evil designer?

[pluto2]

I think that life on earth was probably created by an evil designer.

If life on earth was really designed by someone or something then I think that the designer must be definitely evil or psychopathic.

How else could you explain that 99.999% of humanity are much stronger and more resistant to pain and disease than 0.0001% of the population.

And if some God really created life on earth then I think that the creator of life must be definitely evil.

But then two questions really remain:

1. Why is God as the designer of life on Earth so evil? Why is God not capable of being a good designer?

2. If an evil deity really created (or designed) all life on Earth then who or what really created that deity?

The question has been asked several times I think: If a God created life on Earth then who created that God?

 

[C C]

2. If an evil deity really created (or designed) all life on Earth then who or what really created that deity? The question has been asked several times I think: If a God created life on Earth then who created that God?

"Everything must have a cause" is just another metaphysical abstraction or thought concoction, rather than a concrete object or demonstrable principle with universal effectiveness. But if nevertheless treating it as if legitimate: The very claim of the principle would make it more fundamental than anything else. Thus placing "God" in a subservient position to that regulating concept, which would conflict with the definition of God as an all-powerful / primary agency. To resolve the dissonance, the latter would have to be immune from the rule, or to clarify, would have to be the source of such a principle (conflated with it).

A discussion about either real or imaginary things (plus combo of both) is going to concern the manipulation of their descriptions rather than those things themselves. Making it all the more applicable that in order to get anywhere, the discussion requires elaborating upon and settling their meanings, properties, and limits before proceeding in earnest. It then becomes a matter of maintaining those identities properly and working out an overall coherency of how the submitted items would then relate to each other, and rejecting whatever is inconsistent.[*] Or going back and revising / adjusting, repairing their identities in order to finally make the interconnected mess of them into a consistent framework.

Not unremarkably, the above rarely happens (at least on internet forums).

- - - - - - - - - - -

[*] Including just rejecting the whole set of the affairs / components.

 

[sculptor]

When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos.

 

[DaveC426913]

I am not a Believer, but I can entertain at least some parts of the internal logic, hypothetical as it is. So I'll suspend my personal view to play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

Suspension of disbelief is defined as a willingness to suspend one's critical faculties and believe the unbelievable, to sacrifice realism and logic for the sake of enjoyment.

A devil's advocate is someone who takes a position they do not necessarily agree with, for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further.

So:

[ DA ]
The idea behind God and this terrible world we live in is that he created us, then gave us free will, as his gift, to essentially see what we make of it.
Adam and Eve lived in paradise. No hunger or disease or even death there.

But we, with our free will, ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge. So the world is now what we made it. Is is not his intent to cajole us back to righteousness every time we overbreed and starve ourselves, or wander into and exploit areas of land we have no need for. If we are suffering because of disease, or war or famine, it is because we have chosen it.

[ /DA ]

 

[river]

Hmmmm.....

Interesting thread . It's more complicated than just the title of the thread suggests.

But in the end ; we need to kick out both concepts from their influence on Humanity . Permanently.

Because both sacrifice Human lives to promote their point of view .

Humanity will always be vulnerable to manipulation when it doesn't believe in its self .

As any other Living Being in this Universe has already found out and will find out .

river

 

[mtf]

[ DA ]
The idea behind God and this terrible world we live in is that he created us, then gave us free will, as his gift, to essentially see what we make of it.
Adam and Eve lived in paradise. No hunger or disease or even death there.

But we, with our free will, ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge. So the world is now what we made it. Is is not his intent to cajole us back to righteousness every time we overbreed and starve ourselves, or wander into and exploit areas of land we have no need for. If we are suffering because of disease, or war or famine, it is because we have chosen it.

[ /DA ]

What a tame DA you have there!

[ DA ]
God created the world and all the humans in it. He made some his chosen people. He tortures and kills and then tortures for all eternity all the other people (and animals) as proof of his immense love for his chosen people.
[ /DA ]

 

[DaveC426913]

He tortures and kills and then tortures for all eternity..

Thing is, it's trivially easy to be on the outside of an idea and make up highly negative statements, and pretend it's an open-and-shut case.

But it doesn't serve the purpose of helping to answer a question like the OP's. The way to provide understanding is to phrase it in the context of those who support the internal logic.

If we were discussing gun control, and the OP asked why people hold on to their guns, and "you" simply said "the answer is: they're all idiots". That's not a fair or obejctive assessment. Gun owners do have a very good reason - in their own judgment - for hanging on to their guns. To understand them, one must understand their reasoning, even if one disagrees with the conclusion.

It bugs me that, as an atheist, I am part of a demographic that tends to lose its sense of decorum when it comes to civilized debates. We're not helping ourselves look rational when the best we can do is flame or insult theists.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

But it doesn't serve the purpose of helping to answer a question like the OP's. The way to provide understanding is to phrase it in the context of those who support the internal logic.

It bugs me that, as an atheist, I am part of a demographic that tends to lose its sense of decorum when it comes to civilized debates. We're not helping ourselves look rational when the best we can do is flame or insult theists.

"Was life on Earth created by an evil designer?"

Ok... to answr the OP queston from a God woreshiper viewpont:::

No... God is the opposite of evil. God loves us so much that he gave his only son for us. God made it posible for all people to go to heaven... just believe that Jesus is Lord an savior.!!!

But my thouts are... if life as we know it was intentionally created... then that creater is evil... cause i see life itself as immoral.!!!

 

[mtf]

Thing is, it's trivially easy to be on the outside of an idea and make up highly negative statements, and pretend it's an open-and-shut case.

It's standard Christian and Muslim doctrine that the infidels (whoever they are) deserve to be killed and then tortured for all eternity. That may be an unpalatable-sounding way to phrase it for some people, but it is correct.

But it doesn't serve the purpose of helping to answer a question like the OP's. The way to provide understanding is to phrase it in the context of those who support the internal logic.

If you are not actually a member, then it cannot be said that you're someone who can understand the internal logic.

Philosophically and scientifically minded people tend to forget that there is an important psycho-social momentum to actually believing something, a quality that someone outside does not have, however much they may otherwise be capable of understanding some verbally stated propositions. Meaning, an outsider cannot hope to really understand a religious proposition.
Such people also overestimate the role of logical reasoning and plainness when it comes to religious claims. It's not a given that religious claims are to be taken at face value, as they are stated. In religious circles from which those claims stem, there is often a subtext to them that someone outside cannot adequately understand. An insider makes different associations than an outsider.

If we were discussing gun control, and the OP asked why people hold on to their guns, and "you" simply said "the answer is: they're all idiots".

Except that I didn't say such a thing.

That's not a fair or obejctive assessment. Gun owners do have a very good reason - in their own judgment - for hanging on to their guns. To understand them, one must understand their reasoning, even if one disagrees with the conclusion.

And it's that reasoning that I am after, as far as religions go. It just appears that that reasoning may be politically incorrect, to say the least.

There is reason to suspect that religious people don't actually believe much of the religious claims they make and claim to believe, but that deep down, they believe life is a zero sum game, a war of all against all. Since this is an utterly discouraging proposition to believe, religious people with their various religious claims and practices, try to medicate that discouragement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_for_existence

It bugs me that, as an atheist, I am part of a demographic that tends to lose its sense of decorum when it comes to civilized debates.

A debate cannot be civilized. A discussion may be, but not a debate. Because a debate is all about winning, about getting the upper hand. A debate isn't about understanding eachother or about the truth, although those can be the side-effects of a debate. Note also that a debate requires an arbiter or a judge -- who appoints that judge?

We're not helping ourselves look rational when the best we can do is flame or insult theists.

And while you're trying to be all nice and modest, they are all laughing at you.

If theists really are as superior as they claim, if life really isn't a zero sum game and isn't a war of all against all, then whatever non-theists say or do shouldn't be a problem.

 

[mtf]

If you are not actually a member, then it cannot be said that you're someone who can understand the internal logic.

Philosophically and scientifically minded people tend to forget that there is an important psycho-social momentum to actually believing something, a quality that someone outside does not have, however much they may otherwise be capable of understanding some verbally stated propositions. Meaning, an outsider cannot hope to really understand a religious proposition.
Such people also overestimate the role of logical reasoning and plainness when it comes to religious claims. It's not a given that religious claims are to be taken at face value, as they are stated. In religious circles from which those claims stem, there is often a subtext to them that someone outside cannot adequately understand. An insider makes different associations than an outsider.

A general Christian example:

In Christian circles, in general, when someone says "Jesus died for our sins", the _appropriate_ response is "Praise the Lord!" or "And we have done nothing to earn or deserve this immense sacrifice. We are eternally indebted to the Lord." or some other pious response.

On Christian terms, the appropriate response to "Jesus died for our sins" is _not_
"Prove it."
"Why would he do that?"
"That doesn't make any sense to me."
"I don't understand this."
etc.

For many Christians, "Jesus died for our sins" is not up for discussion, ever, anywhere. On Christian terms, the appropriate response to "Jesus died for our sins" is piety (and the obedience associated with it).

 

[DaveC426913]

dupe

 

[DaveC426913]

It's standard Christian and Muslim doctrine that the infidels (whoever they are) deserve to be killed and then tortured for all eternity. That may be an unpalatable-sounding way to phrase it for some people, but it is correct.

It may be correct, but it is irrelevant to the OP's question, which is about God, not about his people. People thinking God wants them to kill does not equate to God actually being evil (in the sense the OP is asking).

If you are not actually a member, then it cannot be said that you're someone who can understand the internal logic.

It certainly can. There is a difference between internal logic and external logic.

If someone couldn't understand Harry Potter's magic, I could certainly explain the internal logic to them - i.e. in the context of the story's magical premises - while still knowing that the external logic is false (i.e. it does not match reality).

An insider makes different associations than an outsider.

Yes but you just argued against yourself.

Your statement was that of an outsider. My statement was, regardless of my personal beliefs, the point of view of an insider.

Except that I didn't say such a thing.

What you did say was a negative judgment as an outsider. It doesn't really help the OP understand.

A debate cannot be civilized. A discussion may be, but not a debate. Because a debate is all about winning, about getting the upper hand.

A debate is certainly civilized. What makes it civilized is the rules. The desire to win does not extend to cheating by, say, employing abusive langnuage and ad homs.

A debate isn't about understanding eachother or about the truth, although those can be the side-effects of a debate. Note also that a debate requires an arbiter or a judge -- who appoints that judge?

You're talking about a formal debate. An informal debate as no such restrictions.

And while you're trying to be all nice and modest, they are all laughing at you.

This is strange. It sounds like you're advocating debasing onesself, lowering onesself to the level of one's opponent, because they're being mean.

 

[mtf]

It's standard Christian and Muslim doctrine that the infidels (whoever they are) deserve to be killed and then tortured for all eternity. That may be an unpalatable-sounding way to phrase it for some people, but it is correct.

It may be correct, but it is irrelevant to the OP's question, which is about God, not about his people. People being evil not not equate to God being evil.[/QUOTE]
Who is talking about evil people? What evil people do you mean? The ones who will burn in hell for all eternity?
Do you mean that the Christians and Muslim who believe that the infidels will burn in hell for all eternity, are actually the evil ones?

Usually, when people talk about an evil god, they mean a scenario like your DA above, namely, that only an evil god would create life as it usually is, namely, full of suffering.

-- ignore this, I just saw you expanded on your post --

 

[DaveC426913]

You can just replace all your text with [DUPE] for clarity.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

It may be correct, but it is irrelevant to the OP's question, which is about God, not about his people. People thinking God wants them to kill does not equate to God actually being evil (in the sense the OP is asking).

Does God bear no responsibility for creatin a situation which made evil inevitable.???

 

[DaveC426913]

Does God bear no responsibility for creatin a situation which made evil inevitable.???

1] By definition, God is both beyond judgment and beyond morality. As God, it is his universe. By definition, humans cannot judge God.

2] Evil was not inevitable. The whole point of free will is to see what they choose.

 

[mtf]

It may be correct, but it is irrelevant to the OP's question, which is about God, not about his people. People thinking God wants them to kill does not equate to God actually being evil (in the sense the OP is asking).

How do you know?
Do you think it would be unfair for God to kill the infidels?

It certainly can. There is a difference between internal logic and external logic.

If someone couldn't understand Harry Potter's magic, I could certainly explain the internal logic to them - i.e. in the context of the story's magical premises - while still knowing that the external logic is false (i.e. it does not match reality).

I'm talking about the difference between emic and etic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emic_and_etic
"The emic approach investigates how local people think" (Kottak, 2006): How they perceive and categorize the world, their rules for behavior, what has meaning for them, and how they imagine and explain things. "The etic (scientist-oriented) approach shifts the focus from local observations, categories, explanations, and interpretations to those of the anthropologist. The etic approach realizes that members of a culture often are too involved in what they are doing to interpret their cultures impartially. When using the etic approach, the ethnographer emphasizes what he or she considers important."[2]

Although emics and etics are sometimes regarded as inherently in conflict and one can be preferred to the exclusion of the other, the complementarity of emic and etic approaches to anthropological research has been widely recognized, especially in the areas of interest concerning the characteristics of human nature as well as the form and function of human social systems.[3]

Bottomline, if you're not a member of a certain group, you can't have insider knowledge of that group.

Yes but you just argued against yourself.

Your statement was that of an outsider. My statement, regardless of my personal beliefs, was the point of view of an insider.

Which statement of mine? The DA? That was a DA. A DA is necessarily mean, by PC standards.

What you did say was a negative judgment as an outsider.

Not at all.
Why would it be a negative judgment? It's a correct one. Many religious people want us, infidels, as they call us, dead.

It doesn't really help the OP understand.

We're getting there.

A debate is certainly civilized. What makes it civilized is the rules. The desire to win does not extend to cheating by, say, employing abusive langnuage and ad homs.

I take it you've never seen a political debate?

You're talking about a formal debate. An informal debate as no such restrictions.

An informal debate is also of little use, other than as a means to to come interesting insights via intense challenges.

This is strange. It sounds like you're advocating debasing onesself, lowering onesself to the level of one's opponent, because they're being mean.

Not at all. It certainly appears that aggressive, mean people do a lot better in life than the nicer ones.
So it would be better if one were also aggressive, mean.

 

[mtf]

You can just replace all your test with [DUPE] for clarity.

What do you mean ...?

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Then the

1] By definition, God is both beyond judgment and beyond morality. As God, it is his universe. By definition, humans cannot judge God.

2] Evil was not inevitable. The whole point of free will is to see what they choose.

Then the answr to the OP is simply... bow down an praze God.!!!

 

[mtf]

1] By definition, God is both beyond judgment and beyond morality. As God, it is his universe. By definition, humans cannot judge God.

But don't forget that we (at least the ordinary humans) never hear anything from God himself, but always from people. We can never know whether what people say really is God's opinion, or not.

2] Evil was not inevitable. The whole point of free will is to see what they choose.

You seem to be starting from a particular Christian perspective only, ignoring the numerous other theistic perspectives that have a vastly different narrative than Christianity.