God's Perfect Creation (page 3)

MrFreeze

If I believed in God, I would be blaming him. I'm only blaming him in a hypothetical sense, according to the JW philosophy. Pretty much I'm saying to the JW teachings, "If you honestly believe what you teach, you have to believe this too... and that makes your God pretty lousy." I side with Richard Dawkins on what we see in nature:

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

jam

Animals weren,t designed to live forever.

Ok, so what were they designed for. If not for

food, then what. It,s so stupid, Gen. 1;29-30 indicate

we (humans) and animals are to be vegetarians. So

after the flood, why would that change. We still had

plant yielding seeds, trees with seeds. So after the flood

all of A sudden the animals starting turning on each other.

All of A sudden the lion looks at the cow and see A steak.

And man, for years he played with the family chicken, now

he roasting the little fellow over fire.

smiddy

A couple of things that always puzzled me :How or why would a brown grizzly bear know that they could catch salmon swimming upstream for the spawning season,and why or how would they know that fish even existed ?

Also polar bears ,know that their are live food in the form of seals which they can get by breaking through the ice

A couple of things that have puzzled me :How or why would a brown (grizzly?) bear know that if he/she goes to a river when salmon are swimming upstream to spawn they will get a feast of fish ? How does this land animal even know about fish ? Also certain birds that dive deeply into the ocean to feed on fish ? I mean to say if they weren`t programmed by a God in the first place then how would they know of the others existence.On the other hand if they are a product of evolution then the question is more easily understood.

smiddy

OOOPPSS

Heaven

Mr Freeze, this was one of my questions years ago that JWs could never answer. But it isn't just animals, it is all living things. ALL living things have a lifespan.

All living things are born, live, and then die. The difference is the amount of time each species lives. A chipmunk has about a 3 year lifespan, humans about 70 years or so, trees 100s of years, a fruit fly only a few weeks.

All dead organic material feeds the living, including feeding the soil organisms that build the soil for plants to grow which in turn supports the water and air cycles and habitats for birds, animals and insects as well as the ground for animals, birds and insects to walk on and inhabit.

Once you take God and religion out of the picture, once you start truly studying the natural systems you see that death is not because of sin but a part of life.

cofty

I don't believe the Genesis account mentions the death of animals therefore it may be reasonable to assume they didn't die. - Sabatious

Sab - Are you including aphids in that? You do realise we would be knee deep in greenfly within days if there was no animal predation?

Mayfly live for one day and have no digestive system. How long did they live in paradise without food?

If animals were not originally designed to kill why are Cheetahs perfect killing machines?

Same goes for birds like ospreys, owls and gannets.

How about spiders webs, they are wonderful traps for killing flies.

How long would it take for the oceans to become overcrowded without the amazing food chain that exists there?

Why do animals have camoflague?

Why do snakes have venom?

Why do shark embryos kill hundreds of their siblings in the womb before they are even born? Why do they have a conveyerbelt of deadly teeth if not for ripping flesh?

Why do crocodiles have such powerful jaws?

Do you get my point yet?

Black Sheep

A couple of things that always puzzled me :How or why would a brown grizzly bear know that they could catch salmon swimming upstream for the spawning season,and why or how would they know that fish even existed ?

Their hunting and foraging habits are passed on from generation to generation. The slow learners didn't get to pass on their genes.

God didn't make polar bears any more than he made corn, wheat, barley, rye, kiwifruit, bananas, most of our varieties of citrus & apples etc..

Polar bears and grizzlies are related and can produce growlers and pizzlies. They were possibly separated by glaciers only a few hundred thousand years ago, and chaos (variation) and natural selection would have taken care of the rest of the evolution to what they are today.

THE GLADIATOR

Perfect simply means ideal. There is no perfect standard. All life finds a way to survive by any means it can. Of all the species that have ever lived it is estimated that 96% are extinct.

Surviving is a brutal and selfish business. That’s why it is a dog eat dog world. The species that have perished found it to be a very imperfect world. It is doubtful that the world is ideal, let alone perfect.

OldGenerationDude

Thanks for the clarification, MrFreeze.

It weakens the atheist argument to base one's viewpoint or convictions regarding the deity issue on Watchtower doctrine. It's concept of God is not only limited in an academic sense but very narrow in regards to its application.

Yet we should also be careful of the type of argument we use to champion the atheist cause. Richard Dawkins is often cited by many on the board, but his arguments are not applicable outside much of Evangelical/Fundamental Christianity. The arguments he uses are generally based on the concept of deity shared by that branch of Christianity with little regard to the complexities of Orthodoxy and Catholicism. And even worse, practically no arguments of his are ever presented against a deity that fits outside such a paradigm, and that in itself may weaken one's reasoning if the atheist does not learn to expand past this narrow definition of what a god may be or if one presents his views to give the theist such an impression.

Quoting Dawkins no more proves the atheist argument than quoting the Bible proves there is a God. Neither does quoting him seem to raise the atheist's way of thinking higher than when a Christian quotes the Apostle's Creed. Claiming that the definition of God by one religion is false does not disprove God nor does it speak any better about one's convictions than a Jehovah's Witness who sticks to their own narrow defintions and doctrines. It seems that few if anyone raises subjects against the god concepts of Hindus, Native Americans, Pagans, and a myriad of other concepts of God. No offense to Richard Dawkins or those who hold him in high regard, but if there truly is no God, then the entire concept of deity of any kind being possible under any circumstances has to be taken into consideration.

MrFreeze

No it definitely doesn't prove atheists right but all I'm noting is that I share some of the same viewpoints as Dawkins. I don't base my beliefs on what he says. Honestly, I looked at many different religions outside of the JW's. The logic that led me to believe that the JW's were false also led me to believe that all other man made religions based on a God all have the same flaws. You just have to get outside of the bubble of Christianity to be able to see through it all.

If I related with any religion it would be Buddhist because it doesn't require a belief in a god. It just requires a way of life that improves well-being.

God's Perfect Creation

Share this