Why would an intelligent designer use mass extinctions?

Navigator said:
It could be that each period between extinctions is planned that way - as necessary part of the whole unfolding thing.

We 'see' (and thus react to) a mistake where none actually is.
Click to expand...

The designer works in mysterious ways.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
It may seem haphazard and chaotic, but if God had taken an evolutionary 'shortcut' to produce Man, would we have turned out the same? I would bet not, in which case the convoluted path He took may have been required if He had 'us' in mind.
Click to expand...
Why not? If we were created "in the image of god" then god could have gotten to the end point directly without all the goofing around.
 
Navigator said:
In relation to the thread OP and with the bible god also in focus, and in relation to other ideas people have expressed outside of general accepted beliefs about what 'god' [organised religions] is I lean toward the idea that it is essentially Consciousness, has always existed outside of any restrictive form, is essentially 'who we are/what we derive from as conscious beings' cannot be expressed by anything other than metaphor, is not 'he' or 'she' may seem to be omnipresent due to it being connected to every aspect of consciousness within the universe (not excluding the possibility of other universes) has a particular use for this physical universe, is neither 'good' or 'evil' the way we measure such things and is evolving through multi-simulations (see Tom Campbell for more on this) and is inseparable from you and I.
Click to expand...

Are you saying consciousness isn't an emergent property of the brain but rather a cosmic glue?
Sorry not to watch the video series. I ODed on instructive videos this last summer and still haven't made a full recovery.
Could you recommend an article going into more depth of this idea?
 
Navigator said:
Everything does. It is only when they are understood that the mystery is uncovered.
Click to expand...
That may be true of real things that are susceptible to understanding at all, but usually when "mysterious ways" are invoked by the religious, it is a call for greater faith at the expense of understanding. Impossibility and contradiction are no worry if you declare understanding impossible, or even impermissible. To assume the mysteries attributed to gods are simply due to insufficient understanding requires faith not only in those gods, but in the wisdom and integrity of those who purport to explain them.
 
TimCallahan said:
Yes, a less than perfect God - who would, as several posters have noted, fit the actions of Yahweh in the OT - would fit as a creator who might, from time to time, resort to mass extinctions.

In a way this fits with reconciling the social Darwinist dictum of "survival of the fittest" with the real world: Many times its not so much survival of the fittest as it is survival of the most adequate or even survival of the least inadequate. This BTW would explain T. rex's tiny arms: They weren't a special adaptation for some esoteric use. They were, in fact, a maladaption. However, when taken with that head full of nasty fangs and those powerful claw-footed legs, it wasn't that big a drawback.
Click to expand...

Agreed; but once we get to the point of gods doing things that look unquestionably stupid to humans we're either looking at a creator which is intellectually inferior (but perhaps "magically" superior or something) to man or perhaps even delving into pantheism, aren't we?

Next mind experiment: A hypothetical "god" that didn't specifically create man other than to set evolution in motion (like he created bacteria or something) -- how is such a being different from an alien with superior technology?
 
Last edited:
If you dare or have time...google ``the death of the dinosaurs-the darwin papers.
This would be akin to listening to Ken Ham.
.
Regarding an answer for the OP, some think they were here so they could pave the way for our own existance, by helping form the necessary ecosystem. (Stolen from Yahoo Answers)
.
Some think they were put here so they could turn into oil after they died, obviously for our use. But supposedly that is a myth. Sinclair Oil used the dinosaur, as their logo. Unfortunately, Sinclair Oil also went extinct. (Also stolen from Yahoo Answers. Lol.)
.
Or perhaps they prepared the atmosphere for how it is today from all their breathing and passing gas. And after doing their job, were killed so smaller mammals, and hence leading up to us, had a better chance of survival without competing with or fighting dinosaurs. (Gleaned from Yahoo Answers)
.
For more forum answers as to why did God let dinosaurs go extinct, Yahoo Answers posters give a lot of their opinions on this very subject. Google. And happy reading.
.
Keep in mind that with God, time means nothing, supposedly. (Although one can come up with a contradictory argument on this based on the fact that God feels some need to `call people home` well before their time, which has never made sense to me, and has led to religious debate and conjecture)
 
A kind just loving all powerful god wouldn't use mass extinctions. Mass extinction is evidence that no god exists. If a god existed and caused mass extinctions then that god would be stupid.
 
God`s and our definition of ``love/ing`` might be different.
.
How much thought or study went into your reply. Your answer is a typical 5 second response i think. Not that you are necessarily wrong, mind you.
But i just dont think you gave it much evaluation.
 
Iamme said:
God`s and our definition of ``love/ing`` might be different.
.
How much thought or study went into your reply. Your answer is a typical 5 second response i think. Not that you are necessarily wrong, mind you.
But i just dont think you gave it much evaluation.
Click to expand...

But why should the definitions be different?

After all, we're supposedly made in His image....
 
Iamme said:
God`s and our definition of ``love/ing`` might be different.
.
How much thought or study went into your reply. Your answer is a typical 5 second response i think. Not that you are necessarily wrong, mind you.
But i just dont think you gave it much evaluation.
Click to expand...

True, god might define love as torturing you forever....oh wait.
 
bruto said:
That may be true of real things that are susceptible to understanding at all, but usually when "mysterious ways" are invoked by the religious, it is a call for greater faith at the expense of understanding. Impossibility and contradiction are no worry if you declare understanding impossible, or even impermissible. To assume the mysteries attributed to gods are simply due to insufficient understanding requires faith not only in those gods, but in the wisdom and integrity of those who purport to explain them.
Click to expand...

That is true of other human institutions, as I said. Religion is not the only thing that requires faith in the word of the leadership in order to string the followers along a particular course.
 
Manopolus said:
Agreed; but once we get to the point of gods doing things that look unquestionably stupid to humans we're either looking at a creator which is intellectually inferior (but perhaps "magically" superior or something) to man or perhaps even delving into pantheism, aren't we?

Next mind experiment: A hypothetical "god" that didn't specifically create man other than to set evolution in motion (like he created bacteria or something) -- how is such a being different from an alien with superior technology?[/QUOTE]

The main difference I could see would be the first cause thing.

This morning, as I was ruminating about whether to get up or maybe doze off a while longer, it occurred to me that any creator god would have to, by definition, be imperfect. If a being were perfect, and anything the being would create would be less than itself, by creating anything such a being would be introducing imperfection. Since a perfect being would deliberately create imperfection, any creator would have to be imperfect to even want to create.
Click to expand...
 
Manopolus said:
Agreed; but once we get to the point of gods doing things that look unquestionably stupid to humans we're either looking at a creator which is intellectually inferior (but perhaps "magically" superior or something) to man or perhaps even delving into pantheism, aren't we?

Next mind experiment: A hypothetical "god" that didn't specifically create man other than to set evolution in motion (like he created bacteria or something) -- how is such a being different from an alien with superior technology?
Click to expand...

This is why certain branches of human thinking go down that particular path. In regard to the bible, it is made that much easier to do due to 'the gods' being from space (the heavens) and interacting with human beings.

In regard to modern astronomic science beings not from earth would have long distances to travel under harsh conditions and even if we allow for super technological knowledge enabling those beings to do so, we have to consider their own evolution processes enabled them to survive as a specie in order to get them to that point.

Since we have no idea what that might involve and only our own species journey regarding technological advancement to draw off, we can branch off into all manner of speculation, none of which might even be accurate.

However we can 'see' that it could be a possibility that such 'gods' (if they did interact with human kind - and the stories are older than the bible in relation to that idea) ...which is why such an idea is part of what makes up the human species collection of gap filling ideas, and rather than dissipate has evolved into present day concepts.

The other aspect of this is that it shows that 'the gods' are creations of the evolution process and if the 'god' of the OP idea is taken into account, then 'the gods' are more equal with our position having form created through those processes and coming from the same source of consciousness (the ID of the OP).

Which of course compels the thinker to examine the obvious and ask the necessary questions and find the necessary answers.
In this case the most obvious answer is that 'the gods' (even if they were so advanced as to have created the human form) are not 'god' (the Consciousness Intelligence that designed the physical universe.) But might be regarded as representative of that idea.

In relation to that we don't even know if we were 'the gods' first attempt at playing god to a less advanced specie, like a science project which while well thought out was not as successful as first anticipated, if the biblical idea is to be taken into consideration.

The question 'why' this whole process was necessary has been answered in one way suggesting it was simply created to explore in a thrill seeking ennui busting manner. The physical universe being one of perhaps countless simulation which a grand designer (or even a whole species of grand designers) might create and experience.

The grand old designer of our physical universe might be only one such individual experiencing one particular simulation that it created. It might even be a 'young designer' doing a 'school project' interacting on every level of consciousness within its simulation.

In which case we could 'see' that even whoever that might be, it is not necessarily 'god' but from our position that wouldn't particularly matter so much. What we could say though is that the act of exploration and creating simulations to explore and learn from couldn't of itself be regarded as 'evil' even that the ripple effect of that action from the position within has unfolded in evil things as well as good things manifesting.

Importantly, the consciousness which is experiencing all this from within, is what we refer to as 'us'...and also 'extraterrestrials' and not to forget that 'the purpose' of that consciousness is essentially to interact with the simulation and utilize the fact of the matter.

Make machines.

And just as importantly, the consciousness has to deal with the fact that not all its parts are working effectively together, which makes the task that much more difficult (and interesting).
 
Last edited:
TimCallahan said:
Manopolus said:
Agreed; but once we get to the point of gods doing things that look unquestionably stupid to humans we're either looking at a creator which is intellectually inferior (but perhaps "magically" superior or something) to man or perhaps even delving into pantheism, aren't we?

Next mind experiment: A hypothetical "god" that didn't specifically create man other than to set evolution in motion (like he created bacteria or something) -- how is such a being different from an alien with superior technology?[/QUOTE]

The main difference I could see would be the first cause thing.

This morning, as I was ruminating about whether to get up or maybe doze off a while longer, it occurred to me that any creator god would have to, by definition, be imperfect. If a being were perfect, and anything the being would create would be less than itself, by creating anything such a being would be introducing imperfection. Since a perfect being would deliberately create imperfection, any creator would have to be imperfect to even want to create.
Click to expand...

Your thinking is intriguing. What if perfection was the end result of a project started by a perfect thing and the unfolding events of that process only looked or were judged imperfect by that which was able to do so from a position within the process?
Click to expand...
 
Navigator said:
TimCallahan said:
Your thinking is intriguing. What if perfection was the end result of a project started by a perfect thing and the unfolding events of that process only looked or were judged imperfect by that which was able to do so from a position within the process?
Click to expand...

Why would a perfect being want to make anything? How could any being who was part of a perfect creation be himself imperfect enough not to be able to see the perfection of the project?

Consider also that even an imperfect creator could demand worship from his / her subjects, since they are so far below him / her. After all, I can't create so much as one lousy hydrogen atom.
Click to expand...
 
TimCallahan said:
1: Why would a perfect being want to make anything?
2: How could any being who was part of a perfect creation be himself imperfect enough not to be able to see the perfection of the project?

3: Consider also that even an imperfect creator could demand worship from his / her subjects, since they are so far below him / her. After all, I can't create so much as one lousy hydrogen atom.
Click to expand...

1: Why wouldn't one?

2: By going into the project so completely that it cut itself off from any conscious knowledge of its prior reality. In that way it was new born and thus experiencing the only way it could, what it felt like to begin.

The question might be better asked, 'is there any individual aspects of consciousness within the project who can 'see' the perfection of the project from that (their subjective) positions?

3: That is humanizing the position which is to say you are projecting human position into that of the god idea (OP/ID) and making the assumption that the god could be all too human-like emotionally speaking.

Extraterrestrials on the other hand could do this kind of thing over another less advanced species - project their specie attitude into the idea of 'god' and present from that attitude, infiltrating that idea into that of the less advanced species.

Why would the ID wish to have what essentially are aspects of itself within the project (consciousnesses) enslaved into cycles of worshiping 'it'. Seems counter-productive. It would be akin to someones head demanding worship from the rest of that someone's body parts.

I am not saying it doesn't happen but I am saying it is not so smart to assume the ID is interested in that kind of response...I thing too ET would not be interested in us worshiping them as 'gods' either although they might not even have a say in that.

As I said in my last post, it may be that this ripple effect was not anticipated due to it being a first, especially if genetic manipulation was involved on the part of ET. Another explanation could be that it was an experiment to better understand the 'god' idea from the ET point of view in relation to how a god believing specie evolves and reacts to its environment. Perhaps the decision to 'play god' was very calculated on the part of the ET because their own species never went through that as part of their own evolution, and it interests them?

The 'worship' part the ET may have picked up from observing human activity related to the idea of worship and then applying that to demanding a certain way of worship which was focused upon getting humans to behave a certain way - one which was not so destructive.

As humans advanced in their understand so too did their methods of worship. Blood sacrifices being abolished because of this evolved understanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom