Again, Why Couldn't God Create Us With Wings?


Let me respond to a critic who has mocked my suggestion that God could’ve created us with wings here. In the first place I chose this particular example knowing it's not the best example I can conceive of to be different in our world, for a reason. If I can defend this lesser example then it will be even more defensible when I defend other, better examples. But I can defend this change, and I will do so here.

My critic wrote:
But is that practical from an engineering standpoint? You can’t just graft a pair of wings onto a human being and make it fly.

No I can’t. Are you saying that God can’t? Why? Why can’t he? He’s God. Do you really think God is omnipotent or not? Could God have created us so that we could levitate? Yes or no? Could he have created the laws of the universe such that they allow for levitation or not? Is he in charge of the laws of the universe or not? Or is God limited in what he couls create by these laws such that God must create a universe within the bounds of certain laws of creation which he never created? Let’s say he cannot do this by natural means because he never created the laws of nature. Then who did? To say God is limited in his creative power by the laws of the physical universe is to say he did not create the laws of the universe. Then who did create them? Where did they originate from?

Furthermore, if God cannot create just anything in the natural world because of these laws, then why can’t God merely supercede these laws? Let’s say that God couldn’t create fleshly creatures who could levitate by virtue of the supposed fact that he cannot change the laws of nature. Then why is it that God couldn’t cause us to levitate whenever we thought about levitating, much like Superman flies through the air by thinking of flying without any known propulsion? Why can’t God do this? He can and any Christian who thinks otherwise is just not thinking. He could do anything in the physical world irregardless of whether he can create the laws of the universe or not. He can make human beings who have wings and could fly. He could make us look every bit like we do with operational wings.

God could do this naturally by reducing our body weight like birds if he wanted to, or increase the muscles in our wings so that we could fly, or he could just make us fly when we thought about flying. Did you know that God could reduce the size of this universe, this whole universe, by 10 times, or 100 times, or a 1000 times and we would not know the difference since everything will look the same size to those who have been reduced in size? So, if our body weight is too heavy to fly then he could cut our body weight in half or more by merely reducing the whole size of the known universe? Or he could have reduced the size of planet earth (or whole solar system) and the gravitational field would make us lighter in weight (like the gravitational field on the moon). Or he could have just made gravity such that even with the present size of earth it would allow us to fly with wings. And if by changing the present force of gravity may cause other unforseeable problems in the universe, then God could fix those things too. Or God could maintain a perpetual miracle at some point, which would fix any problems with a less intense gravitational force. For those who say God must create and maintain a natural universe with no perpetual miracles I wonder why that must be the case. Does this God ever get weary? Would maintaining a perpetual miracle make him tired somehow? Then how can he truly be omnipotent?

But my critic has further objected to what I argued for in this way: “If you modify a man, at what point does he cease to be a man?” What can be made of this? This presupposes that God must make a man. Is this because God must make man in his physical image or something? Hardly. If the English word “man” only applies to presently existing human beings, then with a major winged change that English word no longer applies to us, of course. But we would still be able to redefine the English word “man” to include a human being with wings. What is essential to the Christian for there to be free willed creatures who decide their destiny apart from God’s directly felt presense, anyway? Why do we have to be warm blooded creatures who can’t fly? Why? I see nothing about such creatures that requires that we must necessarily be warm blooded creatures who cannot fly? Nothing. All that’s necessary is that we are thinking creatures who have free will, from the Christian perspective.

16 comments:

Layman said...

Christians do not claim to undrestand why God did everything He did. Perhaps God wanted humans to see the bird and dream about flying. To develop a concept of freedom associated with flying. To yearn for that freedom. To strive for that freedom and invent and plan and work and then invent the airplane and helicopter.

Basically, your logic takes you to the assertion that unless God created us to do everything He can do, God does not exist. God made us with limitations. Once that is acknowledged, complaining that he could have made us with fewer limitations is just guessing in the dark. It's hardly a rigorous philosophical objection to the existence of God or that God is good.

For those who say God must create and maintain a natural universe with no perpetual miracles I wonder why that must be the case.

What is a perpetual miracle? How would you tell such a thing apart from the nature of the physical world (put more crudely, the laws of nature)? By giving us a universe generally governed by certain principles God gives us the freedom to operate within certain expectations. He also prompts us to study the nature of that universe and acclimate to live within it. If sometimes when you threw yourself off of a building you levitated and sometimes you did not, how would we learn to live and make decisions and to grow and mature?

Francois Tremblay said...

Brillant post, John. You really covered all the bases on this one.

And about "layman"'s post: talk about not getting it. He addressed everything BUT the content of the entry.

The Christian worldview is bankrupt and nihilistic. This must be really hard to take for them, but it's the simple truth.

Anonymous said...

Layman, keep in mind that I have not argued for a pain free existence, like some atheists are prone to do. I have only mentioned one change God could've made to avert a certain amount of suffering, and I did so in some detail. I did this rather than merely throw out a host of changes, so that you can see how it's possible to conceive of God creating something different. But with each change there would be less suffering in this world.

Your answer reduces to 1) we don't know why (which assumes God exists in the first place, thus begging the question, since I'm asking whether it's plausible to believe in a good creator in the first place given the nature of our existence); 2)that suffering is good for us to learn and to grow (but if this is the case then we should be thankful for suffering and rue the day whenever some invention makes life easier for us); and 3) question what a perpetual miracle is (when as far as you are concerned with your assumptions every law of nature is a perpetual miracle). Then you end with a red herring when you assume such a proposal (as wings) leads to a chaotic universe where one day the laws work one way and the next day the laws work a different way. I never argued for such a thing. If there is a perpetual miracle (such as some change in the gravitational force field) then it would always operate the same under all circumstances for everyone and everything.

Layman: Basically, your logic takes you to the assertion that unless God created us to do everything He can do, God does not exist.

This is quite extreme, isn't it. It's like plucking hairs out of a beard and demanding that I say exactly which hair, when removed, will make it no longer a beard. I'm not asking for the beard, just a few less hairs of suffering.

Besides, I thought the word "omnibenelovence" meant something when it's applied to God. But I guess not. If my imperfectly good mother created this world she would do everything she could so that her children didn't need to suffer as unbearably as we do under a perfectly good God's creation.

-------------

I am utterly amazed that the critic I am arguing against with my original post is opting to argue that God just couldn't do what I am suggesting. I thought the word "omnipotence" meant something when applied to God. But here too, I must be wrong.

paul said...

John,
Since no one else has stepped in it, I will.
If God created us in His image, and everyone knows God can fly, shouldn't we be able to? How else did Jesus ascend into heaven?

God did create us to fly. Did we lose that ability when Adam sinned? Before sin and death entered the world, did Adam bounce or fly? If Adam got a bit rambunctious while running around the garden and went headlong over a cliff, since there was no death or pain, it seems he'd have to fly or bounce. If Adam got carried away while swimming with the fish and didn't come up for air, what would be the consequence?
"Consequence" is a word often used by evangelical Christians to explain the bad stuff that happens. So, wouldn't our inability to fly, bounce, or swim under water forever, be a consequence of sin?

As to "free will," I have no answer. I don't have the free will to not be a sinner, I was born into it.

Layman said...

1) we don't know why (which assumes God exists in the first place, thus begging the question, since I'm asking whether it's plausible to believe in a good creator in the first place given the nature of our existence)

I am not begging the question. I am answering your challenge within the context of what God would do if He existed. I am not offering an affirmative proof of God, but explaining why if He existed He may have done or not done certain things.

that suffering is good for us to learn and to grow (but if this is the case then we should be thankful for suffering and rue the day whenever some invention makes life easier for us)

I actually was not addressing the existence of suffering, but of the lack of wings or levitation. And I think my point was that maybe one reason is that we strive to make life easier. So making inventions is part of that process and, indeed, the impetus for growth. Maybe.

question what a perpetual miracle is (when as far as you are concerned with your assumptions every law of nature is a perpetual miracle)

I think I distinguished between the laws of nature and discrete miracle working. My question is what did you mean by the term.

Then you end with a red herring when you assume such a proposal (as wings) leads to a chaotic universe where one day the laws work one way and the next day the laws work a different way.

Actually, I was trying to understand your point about perpetual miracles. And I was speaking of levitation, not wings.

If there is a perpetual miracle (such as some change in the gravitational force field) then it would always operate the same under all circumstances for everyone and everything.

Then you are talking about different laws of nature. The point is that once even a supreme being changes of law of nature, that imposes certain limitations on other properties and changes many, many factors that go into a natural system. Yes, I think God created a natural system and He therefore imposed limitations on Himself by doing so.

This is quite extreme, isn't it. It's like plucking hairs out of a beard and demanding that I say exactly which hair, when removed, will make it no longer a beard. I'm not asking for the beard, just a few less hairs of suffering.

Besides, I thought the word "omnibenelovence" meant something when it's applied to God. But I guess not. If my imperfectly good mother created this world she would do everything she could so that her children didn't need to suffer as unbearably as we do under a perfectly good God's creation.


The problem is that you do now know all of the objectives God was trying to meet when He created the universe and therefore do not know why He would have done certain things, like not give us wings. I grant you that God did not create Candyland for humanity when He made the universe. But I don't think that proves God is not good (which begs many questions about what is good, BTW).

DagoodS said...

Layman,

Perhaps God wanted humans to see the bird and dream about flying.

But equally we could say that if we had wings, God wanted us to dream about space, or rockets or flying together, etc. As humans we continue to strive for more. Faster computers, more efficient fuel consumption, farther into space.

Whether we had wings or not would not inhibit that quest.

You say that perhaps it was to develop a concept of freedom from watching birds in flight. Are we to also develop of concept of freedom in thought? To look for God in nature, in humans, in philosophy, and societies and come to the freedom of the thought that no such God exists? Would God want us to exert that type of freedom as well?

How can we say that God wanted us to strive for physical freedoms, but not for mental ones? (Not that I am intoning this is what you are saying—I am asking.)

Basically, your logic takes you to the assertion that unless God created us to do everything He can do, God does not exist.

Not necessarily. The way I see it is that we are looking at what is more is more likely. On the one hand, I am informed that scientists, by reviewing the fossil record, and comparing various elements of biological beings such as genomes and DNA, have determined that the various species, including humans, have evolved along a certain path. Thus explaining our similarity to monkeys as compared to pigeons, for example.

And due to this evolution process, because our biological ancestors had four appendages, we follow with four appendages. Two extra appendages such as wings, would not evolve so quickly. Thus making wings a pipe dream.

On the other hand, I am informed by individuals that God created humans as is. Evolution would not allow such an immediate transformation, but I see no barrier to God, if he desired, creating humans at the onset with six appendages, including two wings. (Shoot, many Christians believe God created a human that can teleport—which is far more physically challenging than winged travel!)

So what is more likely—that God created humans in their current physical form similar to monkeys, or we evolved?

Further, it demonstrates a question as to why God only went this far. For example, you indicate that He did not create us with wings, so we could strive to fly. Why not create us legless as well, so we could strive to run? Or create us armless to strive to reach? Science answers many of these questions by demonstrating limitations imposed by our ancestors. Theism simply says, “We don’t know. We don’t know.” As you aptly put, it becomes guessing in the dark to surmise why God did it the way he did it, under this proposal.

With these “I don’t knows” the theistic proposal of humans created in the current form becomes less compelling. To me, anyway.

Layman said...

But equally we could say that if we had wings, God wanted us to dream about space, or rockets or flying together, etc. As humans we continue to strive for more. Faster computers, more efficient fuel consumption, farther into space.

Sure, I wasn't being exclusive. One does not preclude the other. Indeed, one is the first step towards the other. Since the first step was conceptualy easier, it encouraged the second step. And perhaps there is something about admiring and considering a bird in flight, which was denied to us for so long, that is good for us to consider and dream and yearn for. Who knows? Not you or me.

You say that perhaps it was to develop a concept of freedom from watching birds in flight. Are we to also develop of concept of freedom in thought? To look for God in nature, in humans, in philosophy, and societies and come to the freedom of the thought that no such God exists? Would God want us to exert that type of freedom as well?

Since God gave us that freedom He must have known it would happen. But having the freedom to arrive at a certain conclusion does not mean that conclusion is correct.

Many have searched and found God.

How can we say that God wanted us to strive for physical freedoms, but not for mental ones? (Not that I am intoning this is what you are saying—I am asking.)

Actually, I thought I was saying that God wanted to create mental striving on our part.

I am not sure what your point is about evolution vs. God. Many Christians believe God created with evolution. Perhaps that is another answer to your question, a desire on God's part to be involved but to also use natural development to shape us.

Further, it demonstrates a question as to why God only went this far. For example, you indicate that He did not create us with wings, so we could strive to fly. Why not create us legless as well, so we could strive to run? Or create us armless to strive to reach?

Probably because he wanted us to be able to run and walk.

Science answers many of these questions by demonstrating limitations imposed by our ancestors. Theism simply says, “We don’t know. We don’t know.” As you aptly put, it becomes guessing in the dark to surmise why God did it the way he did it, under this proposal.

Fortunately, we can look to both for answers.

I did not claim that asking why God did x or y proves he exists or proves that theism is a superior epistomological approach to all questions. I simply said that its a rather fruitless way of trying to disprove God's existence.

Anonymous said...

Wow! The two lawyers are at it. Now I can rest in peace. ;-)

Bruce said...

For example, you indicate that He did not create us with wings, so we could strive to fly. Why not create us legless as well, so we could strive to run? Or create us armless to strive to reach?

Probably because he wanted us to be able to run and walk.

Touche!

DagoodS said...

Layman,

I have long since given up figuring out what is fruitful or not in the argument either for or against a deity. What one person finds compelling, another does not.

I would love to delve into your thoughts regarding God actually encouraging us to look for freedom by limiting our physical abilities, but not necessarily encouraging us to have the freedom to utilize our skills to come to the conclusion there is no God.

However, it is horribly off-topic, and therefore would be rude of me to “hijack” the comments section in such a way.

Another time..

Layman said...

I would love to delve into your thoughts regarding God actually encouraging us to look for freedom by limiting our physical abilities, but not necessarily encouraging us to have the freedom to utilize our skills to come to the conclusion there is no God.

Why would God encourage us to believe He does not exist? I'm not getting that part of your question.

DagoodS said...

With apologies to John W. Loftus: A-hijacking I will go!

Layman, you rightly acknowledge that when it comes to asking “Why God…?” it is grasping in the dark. However, while claiming that, you provided a possible solution to the “Why didn’t God create us with wings?” as a dream about flying and then a development of the concept of freedom that comes from flying.

You emphasized “freedom.” The ability to choose to not remain tied to the ground, but soar in the sky, and even beyond the Earth itself.

While I understood this as speculative, I was curious whether you could stick with it across the board, or would abandon the “strive for freedom” (as I have labeled it) in other aspects.

This proposal, as to what God wants us to be doing about the bugger-all problem of no wings, seems to imply that God cheered when humans finally figured out the persnickety problem he gave them long ago by depriving them of wings, but showing them seagulls.

In fact, you used the terms, “denied to us for so long, that it is good for us to consider, and dream and yearn for.” This strive for freedom and its culmination would be greeted with God’s approval. Not the actual flight itself, but the process to it. I presumed (incorrectly?) that God would have equally approved of human’s tales and poetry and designs over the centuries, all looking for this freedom.

Or was God only happy with the results? Everything prior to the Wright Brothers was mere piffle?

Yet some of us, in our dreaming, yearning, consideration and strive for freedom have come to the conclusion that there is no God. Is this striving ALSO approved by God? Or does this quest for stretching our knowledge beyond what we have today meet with vast disproval, due to the wrong conclusions?

Is God only happy with the conclusion here?

I don’t know your position on the afterlife, so this may not apply to you.

I imagine standing in line at the Judgment day, next to Da Vinci.

God says to Da Vinci: Good on you for striving for the freedom of flight. Although you did not succeed, I heartily approve of you efforts in this regard.

But then God says to me: Too bad. I see that you too, yearned and dreamed and spent a great deal of effort in the field of theism. I see you begged and pleaded for a long period to have a relationship with me. That you searched for me through various Holy Writings, authors of varying beliefs, scientists, scholars, philosophers, and writers from every stripe. I see you debated about me in blogs, forums and e-mails. That you talked to people almost daily about God. I did not give DaVinci wings, and he strove to overcome it. I did not give you revelation and equally you strove to overcome it. His effort was commendable. Your effort was condemnable. I am sorry you used your efforts and reached the wrong conclusion. Off to the fire with ya!

That did not make sense to me at all.

If your proposal of why God did not give us wings was to make us strive, are you equally saying He does not reveal himself to make us strive? Is one striving worthy of approval, despite the results, and the other only worthy if one gets the right results?

Why would God encourage us to believe He does not exist?

John W. Loftus: Why didn’t God give us wings?
Layman: Perhaps To strive for freedom.

Layman: Why would God encourage us to believe He does not exist?
Me: Perhaps to strive for freedom.

Why is it correct for YOU (emphasis, not shouting) to propose a “Perhaps” but when I propose the exact same “perhaps” it becomes preposterous?

Exactly the problem with this God—if you say you have no way to know why he didn’t give us wings, you equally have no way to know why he does not reveal himself. In fact, the list of “I don’t knows” just keeps growing…

Which is fine, but so often, immediately after that “I don’t know” the theist follows with a “But..” and then proposes a reason anyway. I just wanted to see if your reason for lack of flight (strive for freedom) would equally hold water with the reason for lack of revelation.

Layman said...

Dagood,

Obviously not all striving is going to be equal. Hitler strived to exterminate the Jews and no Christian I know thinks he's going to get kudos for his effort no matter how sincere he was in that effort.

No, atheism isn't comarable to genocide and that's not my point. I'm only pointing out that striving is not conclusion neutral. Advances in technology or science are positives. But God does have an issue with people denying Him His due.

And I really don't want to put too many eggs in the striving to fly basket. It's illustrative, not the end of the inquiry or the answer itself.

Do I think there is reward to striving to better ourselves? Yes, I do. Do I think God had such in mind when he designed man, the world, the solar system, and the universe? Yes I do. Do I think it was a very complicated task to balance his objectives while creating enduring laws of nature that were going to hold sway for billions of years so as to further free will and choice on behalf of humans? Yes, which is really my point.

God tells us some things. Much He does not. Much of what He does not we can learn through other efforts, such as with science and philosophy. But when it comes to knowing God's mind and intent to the extent it is not fully revealed to us, then science and even philosophy will only take us so far.

From the Calvinist perpsective, no man is pure and completely sincere in his search for truth.

From the Arminian perspective, man fares a little better but his motives will always be suspect. The mind might be sincere, or as sincere as man can be, but still reflect a heart or emotional issue.

From other traditions, God may take sincerity and good-faith -- if thus He judges it to be -- and count it in your favor.

And this is not even getting into other theist traditions such as Judaism, Deism, and Islam.

DagoodS said...

Layman,

You make my point. John W. Loftus originally asked “Why no wings?” to which you responded that any answer would be grasping in the dark, but you still proffered out the possibility that it was to “strive for freedom.” Now we see that even that answer did not provide us with any more information on the subject, since “striving for freedom” is not always an appropriate goal.

I was a little surprised that you used Hitler as an example. For three reasons:

1) He is a good example of how striving for freedom is not always an appropriate goal, and thus striving for freedom may not be something that God wants, even with wings;

2) He is a good demonstration of how advances in technology and sciences are not always positives. How do you think rockets which take us to space were originally funded and researched? For the purpose of delivering high explosives on one’s enemies from a distance. Is THIS a positive direction for “striving for freedom”? Or dare I mention the nuclear bomb, which only has one purpose.

Oh, true, there are positive derivatives from nuclear research. But there are negative derivatives from flying, too—true? Such as the delivery of weapons. Or the use of a flying as a weapon itself.

God didn’t give us wings, nor the ability to spew fire. Did he want us to strive for freedom to fly, but not drop bombs? To entertain, but not develop flame-throwers? Your proposed qualified answer of “strive for freedom” introduces more questions; it does not provide more explanation.

3) I address this toward evangelical Christians—but how can one criticize Hitlers’ use of genocide in his “strive for freedom”? God mandated genocide of the Midianites, Amaelkites, Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. Clearly God has no problem in humans’ striving for freedom with the use of genocide—He does it himself!

Bottom line—as I suspected. The conditional answer of “perhaps to strive for freedom” does not provide us any new information, and only presents more questions.

Layman, this is not a slam-dunk argument for the non-existence of God, of course. But it is another example of a fairly simply question to which the theist has no explanation. After hearing yet another “I don’t know” from Christianity, and “I don’t know. Yet.” from science, I have a tendency to rely on science. Christianity is stuck with a 1900 year old book, science surges forward. More on this in a minute, so hold your horses before responding to that!

When God designed the world, he did it with the intention that we strive to better ourselves? How curious. It is only in retrospect that we can determine whether we have “bettered” ourselves—isn’t it?

Has the internet “bettered” ourselves? Some would say yes, others no. Has the ability to deliver bombs all over the world bettered ourselves? Again, some say yes, some no. Are you saying that God left us to flounder here and struggle? “No pain, no gain” sort of world?

Then how come, at the tower of Babel, when we DID work to better ourselves, and DID strive for freedom in unity and peace, God found that to his dislike? If we, again, eliminated war, developed one language, and obtained a common purpose (all of which I would think “bettered ourselves”) would God have to step in again?

And too bad for those millions that were crippled by polio while we worked to “better ourselves” and obtain a cure, eh? Or the millions that died from yellow fever? Or the millions that died from the plague?

This has a hint of deism to it, in that it leaves us to struggle out our own betterment.

Do I think it was a very complicated task to balance his objectives…

Can you tell me what is complicated to God, and what is not? Or are you saying that it appears complicated to humans? Frankly, the only thing “complicated” about it, is that it puts the theist in a conundrum, not the naturalist.

The original question (‘case you forgot) was “Why can’t we have wings?” Now I am told that it is a complicated task, and apparently would have, in some way, unbalanced God’s objectives. “How?” I ask and once again am informed “I don’t know.”

What begins to materialize is that “God” is a one-word explanation that provides no further explanatory power. In other words—it provides us with nothing. No new information.

“How did the world come into being?”
“God”
“What did God do?”
“I don’t know.”

“How did we get abiogenesis?”
“God”
”What did God do?”
“I don’t know.”

“Why can’t we have wings?”
“Because it would unbalance God’s objectives.”
”How?”
“I don’t know.”

Again and again, we hear the one-word definition, “God” then a qualified answer, “perhaps ___” which upon unpacking becomes a non-answer, and we are left with just “God” followed by “I don’t know.”

No, this is not a proof against God—it just shows that the “God” explanation provides no new information and by skipping it entirely, leaves at the same level of knowledge.

God tells us some things.

Well, that is not technically correct, is it? Actually, what we have is “Some humans claim that God tells us some things.” And, when referring to the Bible, and the passing of oral tradition and copies, we end up with “Some humans claim some humans claim some humans claim [and further undetermined number of ‘some human claims’] that God tells us some things.”

Do you discount what some humans claim that God says? Such as Mormons or Muslims? Then you know of the possibility that humans can make claims that God says something that you believe he did not. Is it not appropriate for me to use your methodology as well, but as to your claims?

Now look at the big picture. You seem to indicate that God wants us to struggle, strive, yearn, dream, eventually learning and growing in knowledge about the world and the universe. At one time you asked, “Why would God encourage us to believe he does not exist?”

Good question. Why provide the Bible, then? At one time, a literal reading of the creation account, and the history of the Tanakh would place a six 24 hour-day creation about 6000 years ago. Yet in our struggle, striving and learning, we discover this cannot be.

If God wanted us to believe the Bible, why provide a tale contrary to what science later discovers?

Then we read of the Ten Plagues and Exodus. In our struggle, striving and learning, we discover this cannot have happened.

If God wanted us to believe the Bible, why provide a tale contrary to what science later discovers?

We read of Joshua’s invasion, and a large united kingdom under David and Solomon, with vast riches. In our struggle, striving and learning, we find no evidence of this having happened.

At this point, the history of the Tanakh appears to be more allegorical, rather than historical. If the Christian is willing to read the Tanakh as mythical, in the same way, is it not possible that the storied of Jesus also contained elements of myth? And then the question comes about—how to determine what is myth and what is history.

What I see is that as long as science, technology and research is ambivalent to the Bible, a Christian welcomes it. But if science or striving dares to actually counter something in the Bible, the Christian immediately rejects it as being incorrect. If, eventually even science prevails to the point that the Christian must accept it, then the only explanation is still “God did it” with no further information forth coming.

Christians are more than willing to accept and utilize scientific advances as long as they stay away from anything that remotely has to do with Biblical accounts.

Flying? “I don’t know.”
Evolution? “CAN NOT BE.”

Note: Normally I am not this pushy on evolution. Not my area of expertise by any stretch of anyone’s imagination. However, more and more I am struck by how little theism has to offer by way of explanations. While science as a lot it is still looking for answers, theism seems to be caught in a rut with no new information. No matter what the future holds in research, theism will always be there on the sideline, merely shifting the answer “God did it” to whatever new questions are discovered, followed by the same immediate “But I don’t know how until science discovers it.” At which time, the “God did it” sign will be moved again.

Good discussion, layman. Doubt we will convince either other.

Bruce said...

It takes a lot of brain matter to control flight. Since weight is a problem with any flying animal, brains can't get too big, leaving very little cognitive ability.

But I thought we only use a small percentage of our brain as it is? Seems like there is plenty of room in there for flight.

Wings make it very difficult to hold things. It would be difficult to develop written language with wings for hands.

Every picture I've ever seen of an angel has the wings completely separate from the arms.

For such a powerful being there sure are a lot of excuses.

Curiosis said...

rich,

So if we are striving to be more like god, then we were doing the right when when we slaughtered the native Americans to get their land (like the Jews did under god's command when they entered the promised land), and we would be doing the right if we killed everyone who is corrupt or evil (like god did during the flood).

How many babies do I have to murder to be just like god?

The problem with your statement is that your definitions of right and wrong have no meaning other than "right=what god wants" and "wrong=what god doesn't want."

If god is always right, then there are times when killing children when it's not necessary is good. How can you possibly defend such a position?