For the believer in supernatural deities, a god created existence and all that is contained within it. As, it would seem to date, the most advanced form of life is the human animal. This is an animal that, for all intent, is biologically identical to a chimpanzee or bonabobo monkey.
"This item has been updated to reflect that chimps and bonobos are two species of chimpanzees that are close enough to humans to share 99.6% of their DNA. The international sequencing effort was led by Max Planck composed of multiple teams including 454 Life Sciences in Branford, Connecticut. The researchers also found that the ancestors of humans split from the ancestor of bonobos and chimps more than 4 million years ago, not more than 5 million years ago as originally reported."
From Science Magazine.
It would seem that god the creator saw fit to, essentially, replicate the human in the physical and biological likeness of a monkey. "While Genesis 1:24-27 plainly indicates that man was created after the animals, critics claim that Genesis 2:18-19 teaches that man was created before animals. They strongly assert that such language by the author of Genesis proves that the Bible is not divinely inspired." It is no wonder why such deity believers have some confusion, as the inspired word of god also says the opposite.
In any case, the question remains, is human the best that an omnipotent god could create. One needs to consider the biological dependence that humans have on inferior life forms, to merely exist, we must kill and eat them before they eat us.
"The idea that trillions of bacteria are swarming over your skin and through your body is enough to give anyone the creepy crawlies.
But as long as humans can't live without carbon, nitrogen, protection from disease and the ability to fully digest their food, they can't live without bacteria, said Anne Maczulak, a microbiologist and author of the book "Allies and Enemies: How the World Depends on Bacteria"
There is also bad bacteria, not just the ones that human life needs to exist, but those bacteria, also created by this deity, that will kill us. It was not until science discovered these little guys (life forms) that we knew of their existence or how to combat them, as no mention of such a prevalent life form is mentioned in the bibles. We must also consider the virus, another of gods creations that will kill us.
Let us shift our focus to Man himself and leave the godly created biological imperfections aside. For the most part the human normal is to have a functioning body and a functioning brain that allows one to normally function in a world of cultural norms. However, somewhere between 3-4% of births in the US are accompanied by major birth defects. A small percentage may be due to bad parenting the remainder can be attributed to a godly creative process, of which we have no control over. We now know that chemical imbalances in the brain, which n many cases are genetically passed on to off spring account for a majority of crimes. For the definition of evil, should we now include the participation of a godly influence. Is the the claim of 'freewill' a reality or is evil an inbred element of a god and is Man created by this god to be evil?.
" About 10 percent of problems seen at birth can be traced to a specific agent (environmental agent, drug, biologic, or nutritional factor). About 20 percent are inherited or are associated with chromosomal changes. The rest (about 70 percent) are of unknown etiology." March of Dimes as source
"Christiansen made a survey of nine twin-criminality studies.1 In these studies, identical (monozygotic) and fraternal (dizygotic) twins were compared with respect to "concordance" of criminality between the two groups. Wilson and Herrnstein2 pooled Christianses’s and other data and found identical twins to have concordance of 0.69, compared to only 0.33 for same-sex fraternal twins. This result clearly indicates a substantial genetic component in criminal behavior."
"There is nothing new about the notion that criminals are born rather than made; it has cropped up repeatedly over the past century in the continuing debate over nature versus nurture." CriminalImbalenceWalsh----independentcouk
Is humanity really the handiwork of an omnipotent and loving god and is this the best he/sh/it can do. If to create such a dependent creature and place it in a hostile world without any knowledge of itself and victim to weather, poisonous plants, insects and a multitude of disasters is a loving god, than that is a problem.
Could this god have created a smarter life form, a life form that is less prone to disease that he has no control over, birth malfunctions that he has no control over or is this god incapable of anything better?
If he is capable of better, than why create such a inferior life form,,,,to test or possibly practicing for something better.
Perhaps, this god, after creating a universe, with billions of galaxies, each containing billions of stars for which their could easily be as many worlds within those stars "Habitable Zones", has many such "experiments" going on all over the universe, all kinds of various life forms living on many various types of worlds. This god is simply the 'scientist' who observes these many lifeforms as our scientists would observe the many species of animals and insects on our world.
I don't think it's a matter of creating superior lifeforms as it is observing all kinds of life forms to see which ones evolve through natural selection, thus creating diversity of species, two postulates of evolution that are indeed true.
Religions may have some truth in their madness in that we are indeed being tested for something beyond this world.
Are you saying that there may be an intelligent creative force, similar to the creationist claims, as the cause for the universe and contents, or a preeminent intelligence who observes and cultivates the hardiest?
I am familiar with this, I think, and, quite honestly, I find it as objectionable as a god. Are you promoting a Deistic theology.
Sometime ago I had read, I think it was on a TED thing, of a theological premise that painted a picture of 'farmer or cultivator' class, perhaps the first intelligent species to evolve in the universe, who then began to oversee the development, evolution, of other species. This may have nothing to do with your thinking on this, but thought I would throw it in.
Provide a little more detail. I have a respect for your thought and will not dismiss, out of hand, your response. I am not sympathetic to your proposal though and will provide resistance until I am clear on the thinking.
Pulled this off the internet, just to reconcile the enormity of the undertaking that you propose. Do you still think this caretaker thing is a possibility, without omnipotent capabilities or do you propose omnipotence?
"Astronomers estimate 100 billion habitable Earth-like planets in the Milky Way, 50 sextillion in the universe."
Not really, I'm just going with your theme of a god having created humans and why it appears that god didn't do a very good job with humans and the evidently hostile world upon which we were placed.
What I'm proposing is merely one of many such theistic arguments that theists themselves are usually incapable of presenting themselves. In other words, non-believers can come up with far more plausible arguments in favor of gods and creators than those who worship them. I've done this before several times and have presented solid arguments in favor of gods, using scientific theories to support them. It really wasn't that hard.
I only make such propositions to show believers that with some knowledge and understanding of the world around us, they too could present better arguments. Alas, as you can see, they refuse to learn anything and their arguments are childish, at best.
This is much as I see things.
Another point though - the OP's premise assumes that God/dess/It is omnipotent, which I don't necessarily feel is the case.
Perhaps, you can further define your position in more detail. Ambiguity answers nothing. The omnipotent god is the assumption of the theist.
I believe in an imanent Deity which is the conglomeration of all things. In my path we call this "The Dragon" (the Celtic name for the All). It is omniscient, but not omnipotent, as all things have free will. It is a self-aware entity and exists to explore itself through the many facets of its being (i.e. all things).
As shards of the All, each of us is interconnected with and part of everything that is, whether those things have what we perceive as "life" or not. I am you, you are me, we are both the trees outside my window, the teacup I'm drinking out of and the tea I'm drinking, the electronics that make up the computers we're using to access this thread, etc, etc.
However we cannot generally access the mind of All Things At Once, though the goal of the mystic is to work towards that connection.
And yet, I just made all of that up knowing full well it most likely is invalid.
That would be an argument you would have with God believers.
You wrote, "This is an animal that, for all intent, is biologically identical to a chimpanzee or bonabobo monkey." I believe Bonobos are apes not monkeys.
I would like to suggest an alternative theory. We are part of a multi-verse and we are energy which travels from one universe to another to learn and create. We are creating our society with our decisions. We may even be creating the material world itself.
As proof that we are energy and not the material body I offer the existence of Telepathy or ESP. Telepathy indicates an energy transfer beyond the known material world. I offer the Hub, "My Telepathic Experiences" for verified proof. I also refer the reader to about 14,000 case studies of Edgar Cayce. Also see Silva Ultra Mind.
I am familiar with the multiverse hypothesis and I think we have a long way to go before it has any credibility. Traveling between these universes , in any state, requires much more imagination than I possess. As galaxies cluster and merge and yet, exist independently, I would imagine the same could exist with reference to universes.
Edgar Cayce is not a credible proof, although he certainly did possess something, perhaps, a form of telepathy, but nothing that I would consider proof.
I am open to such thinking, as I do believe that we are capable of a great deal more than what we are currently doing, but I do not see this as a panacea or a ready promise of tomorrow. I am a skeptic on most everything and condemn nothing, except ignorance.
I view much of this, as I view religion, as a form of escapism void any real value to what we are and the problems we face in real terms. Perhaps, I suffer from to much pragmatism for such speculation, but, at the same time, I do not oppose it.
What is important is that we study the subject of ESP/Telepathy. I understand your hesitation. For what it is worth you have my personal testimony of five verified telepathic experiences. Unlike a dead author of an ancient book, I am alive and can answer questions. Reading a book/article is not the same as personal experience.
If you are intellectually honest you may read a biography of Edgar Cayce. It is still not as good as personal experience. You may also try joining an ARE Study Group. It is free. See website.
If one were intellectually honest, they would take the time to find out what has been learned about how the brain works, and although there is still much to learn, we have certainly learned enough to know the brain does not function that way nor could function that way. There are no transmitters or receivers built into the brain in order for thoughts to transfer from one person to another.
Your personal testimonies, in light of being intellectually honest, can be interpreted in other ways such as mental disorders or other reasons for hallucinations and hearing voices.
But, ESP/Telepathy certainly is not something that has been verifies nor is likely to ever happen, unless the brain takes a severe evolutionary turn, which doesn't seem likely.
You wrote,"Your personal testimonies, in light of being intellectually honest, can be interpreted in other ways such as mental disorders or other reasons for hallucinations and hearing voices."
Yes, I understand your hesitation and there are mental disorders. My telepathic experiences were VERIFIED by another person. Therefore they should be accepted as fact by an intellectually honest person. Just because we do not know how telepathy works does not mean it does not exist. Just because we do not control it does not mean it does not sometimes occur.
All I am asking is that you research the subject and keep an open mind. Avoid pre-judgment. I did the same thing Edgar Cayce did, therefore I accept many of his 14,000 cases. I offer the Hub, "Cayce Proved Jesus." Also check the Nelson Silva Group and The University of Virginia psychology department. There is another group in California studying telepathy which was founded by a former astronaut.
Sorry, but that other person, or you have fabricated the whole thing, there is no intellectual honesty in your claims.
Once again, an intellectually honest person would learn quickly enough the brain does not work that way and could not possibly work that way. Do you understand this?
This isn't about having an open mind, it is about intellectual honesty and the lack thereof in your claims.
Again, one of the problems with ESP/telepathy/magic etc is that we don't have measuring devices which can capture them. Yet.
Another problem is that they are not always ours to command, which is one of the reasons that it's challenging to set up experiments to prove or disprove them. Yes, those faculties can be trained so that they can be more predictable and so that we can have better access to them (and some folks are naturally more talented than others at it). However that is often the work of a lifetime.
Those of us who have had telepathic experiences know that they are valid, even if they cannot be "proven" to anyone else.
And if those experiences were not valid, I doubt both the US and the Russians would have spent the huge amounts that they did on remote viewing experiments during the Cold War and after. *shrug* Just a thought.
However you insist that the brain "does not and cannot possibly" work that way. What proof do you have to back up that statement?
No, the problem is ESP/telepathy/magic is all nonsense.
Sorry, but the brain does not work that way and cannot possibly work that way. Does this actually mean anything to you?
Sorry, but your so-called experiences are all in your head.
Notice that nothing ever came from that, because it is bogus?
Biology, neuroscience. Try learning something about the brain, that way you too will understand your claims are nonsense.
You wrote, "Sorry, but that other person, or you have fabricated the whole thing, there is no intellectual honesty in your claims."
Fabricated, No. I was there and you were not. I knew the other person and heard them as they confirmed what I said. Does a scientist call someone a liar just because he does not want to accept evidence contrary to his view?
As for my mental stability, I am a retired peace officer and have been scrutinized for 20 years. If was am delusional or hallucinating the agency would have gotten rid of me many years ago.
Yesterday's "magic" is often tomorrow's science. Just because no one has yet found transmitters/receivers in the brain does not mean they will never find such a thing.
But, science isn't magic, ESP/Telepathy appears to be only magic.
Sorry, but scientists are not so incompetent to have not found something in the brain that transmits and receives others thoughts.
Many of the ancients believed that the galaxy was earth-centric not heliocentric. Several hundred years ago magnets (lodestones) were thought to be magic. A few hundred years ago, we didn't understand Bernoulli's principle or the other principles and mechanics that allow airplanes to fly. We learn new things about science every single day.
Maybe it would help to define magic a bit. In my knowledge it is a force of nature which shapes the energies of the Universe. We may not entirely understand it yet, but which does follow certain principles which can be utilized for somewhat predictable results.
Someday I'm sure we'll have other words for what we now term magic. Quantum mechanics is already beginning to unlock some of the principles by which "magic" may work.
In the case of ESP/Telepathy it is possible that we will eventually understand this principle through the principle of quantum entanglement. As yet, I doubt that scientists are sophisticated enough yet to study the idea of quantum entanglement between particles in individual brains.
This hardly suggests that scientists are incompetent. Merely that they have not yet been capable of measurements such as this.
I was quite interested in Cayce 'some' years ago and did some extensive reading, both pro and con. I came away disappointed. You are right however, telepathy should not be dismissed and deserves serious study. The problem is to separate the fakes from the serious. I will take a look at the ARE Study Group. There are studies going on now with reference to Quantum Mechanics, which may have some relevance. Thanks.
God did not have to experiment with other worlds, galaxies, and other creations. He has made it all and He establishes the laws and nature of everything. Thus, there is no need for experimentation. He is also sovereign over everything which is to say that nothing occurs outside of His will. As a theologian once said, "There are no maverick molecules in the universe": meaning, nothing is out of His control. If God didn't exist for a single moment, the universe and everything in it would cease to exist as well. Not only has He created all things but He also sustains the very things He has created--holding everything together. Also, all life derives from God as oppose to having life inherently within ourselves. Thus, He gives life and death to whom He wills: life is a gift from God.
When it comes to birth defects, pestilence, natural disasters, hatred, wars, and other bad things, they are all the result of the Fall of Mankind. We live in a world saturated with sin and all these things are the result of it. The Apostle Paul explains:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Romans 1:18-23 ESV)
The Bible describes all of humanity to be in this condition that Paul gives. Humanity has fallen away from God and His means of reconciliation back to Himself is through His Son, Jesus Christ. See my hub "The Gospel and Why the Right Belief Matters" for more detail.
The way that the world is now is not how God intends to leave it. It was "very good" when He first created it. There was no death, disease, or defects, but we ruined it. However, one day the Lord will return on the Day of Judgment when He will judge every person (again, read my hub) and will restore the world to its original state where the children of God (Christians: those who follow Jesus Christ) will dwell in His presence forever in His kingdom.
by Baileybear 10 years ago
Hanging around doing nothing? Who created God?
by Rodric Anthony 8 years ago
Do you believe that there is life on other planets besides Earth and what makes you think so.There are so many schools of thought (religious and secular) about life on earth and other planets. Are we alone in the universe or did life sprang into being elsewhere? Did God only have enough time for...
by qwark 9 years ago
Can anyone relate this question, intellectually, to the contemporary "human condition?" Explain why you can or cannot.Qwark
by Mikeydoes 9 years ago
This is not whether or not God exists or your religion is correct, because all that matters when it comes to religion is your opinion and how you cope with life. Every time I go to the forums there is a new religion thread and to me it just becomes more and more pointless. I got involved in those...
by Claire Evans 5 years ago
That's the typical Sam Harris argument. How does suffering negate God's existence? Maybe He's just watching. It doesn't mean He doesn't exist and for anyone to bring up suffering as proof of no God is indication of a logical fallacy.
by OpinionDuck 10 years ago
Is it God?Is it a Creator?Is it a Creator that is a GodIs it some other force, other than a Creator or a God?A creator doesn't have to be a God ----- A creator could just create and not care to be the God of the creation. It is possible that the creator might just be running an experiment and...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|