• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What you could do better than god

Yea...

Not to mention obvious stuff like "thou shalt mark thine house with my symbol, which is a band of copper extending from 1 cubit above the tallest point of the rest of thy house, to 1 cubit underground. The houses thus marked shalt be spared from the thunderbolts I throw in mine wrath" :p
 
Beelzebuddy said:
"Thou shalt wash thy hands before cleaning a wound" is a simple directive that requires no future knowledge to understand, but would have saved million of lives. If a little germ theory would be acceptable in the commandments of a supposedly omniscient and omnibenevolent deity, "boil your water" would also have had an impact. Funny how they're both missing though.
Click to expand...

Joseph Smith was supposedly told by God to forbid Mormons hot drinks. I wonder how many needlessly died of cholera as a result.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
If god is unable to do everything, then it is not omnipotent. If this is the case none of the monotheistic gods, and quite a few of the polytheistic gods can exist.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Omnipotence
Omnipotence is maximal power. Maximal greatness (or perfection) includes omnipotence. According to traditional Western theism, God is maximally great (or perfect), and therefore is omnipotent...

One sense of ‘omnipotence’ is, literally, that of having the power to bring about any state of affairs whatsoever, including necessary and impossible states of affairs. Descartes seems to have had such a notion... Yet, Aquinas and Maimonides held the view that this sense of ‘omnipotence’ is incoherent. Their view can be defended as follows. It is not possible for an agent to bring about an impossible state of affairs (e.g., that there is a shapeless cube), since if it were, it would be possible for an impossible state of affairs to obtain, which is a contradiction...

A second sense of ‘omnipotence’ is that of maximal power, meaning just that no being could exceed the overall power of an omnipotent being. It does not follow that a maximally powerful being can bring about any state of affairs, since, as observed above, bringing about some such states of affairs is impossible. Nor does it follow that a being with maximal power can bring about whatever any other agent can bring about....

That a being is omnipotent just provided that its overall power is not possibly exceeded by any being may be adopted as the most general definition of omnipotence
Click to expand...

If we are talking about the Christian God then this is the definition we should be using. How do we we know? There are numerous passages in the Bible that show Yahweh's power was limited. The ancients understood and accepted this. They were happy enough just having a god who was more powerful than all the other gods, not some impossible mathematical construct with infinite everything. Furthermore they only had to look around to see that such a being did not exist.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
Seems to me like if there is an intelligent designer, who actually lovingly hand-coded that DNA, it should be a pretty clear hint that, you know, maybe either code them differently or code the DNA repair mechanism differently, so it doesn't have this vulnerability.
Click to expand...
That's a very narrow definition of 'intelligent'. A more intelligent designer wouldn't create a system that requires hand-crafting DNA. He would develop a mechanism that modified the DNA automatically once set in motion - which we might then call 'Evolution'.

Humans are going down the same path. In the early days of computing, programs were lovingly hand-coded one machine instruction at a time. Then compilers were developed that allowed the programmer to focus more on the 'big picture'. Now they are moving beyond that to Genetic Algorithms which work much like evolution.

A God who was constantly fiddling with DNA in an attempt to improve His designs would be a pretty poor god - not much better than puny humans. He would probably suffer from the same hubris that certain humans do too. Humans who - despite having practically no knowledge or skills in the field - confidently assert that they could do better than any God if they just had the power. A better example of Dunning Kruger cannot be found.
 
I will grant you that that makes a lot more sense, but that's not what 'intelligent design' (or for that matter any major religion) tells me that their god did. They explicitly say that God created all those species, not that evolution happened. I mean, again, your version makes more sense, but that's not what Genesis (and a few other religions I've studied), not to mention the ID nutcasery, actually say.

But more to the point, that's not what this thread asks. Sure, you can imagine that a God works by evolution, and it might even make sense, but the question is quite explicitly: if you could design stuff by hand, instead of whatever hacks on top of other hacks evolution produced, or however else God worked... what would YOU design better?

In fact, I don't care exactly HOW god did it, or WHAT shortcuts He or She took, or whether that's benevolent or malevolent. Just which pieces could have been designed better, if you had the power to do it, and literally 14 billion years to code it. That's it. That's all.
 
Last edited:
You have mentioned a lot of my favourites. In general, there are a lot of aspects of physiology or anatomy where the hypothetical creator has used a more elegant solution than in other species. You mentioned the cephalopod retina compared to the mammalian retina. Also why don't we have four colour vision? Why did primates lose the ability to synthesise vitamin C? It is almost certainly a bad thing for humans.
 
HansMustermann said:
Yea...

Not to mention obvious stuff like "thou shalt mark thine house with my symbol, which is a band of copper extending from 1 cubit above the tallest point of the rest of thy house, to 1 cubit underground. The houses thus marked shalt be spared from the thunderbolts I throw in mine wrath" :p
Click to expand...

That would just be trolling until the industrial revolution.

"YOU WANT ME TO USE HOW MUCH COPPER?"
 
HansMustermann said:
Yea...

Not to mention obvious stuff like "thou shalt mark thine house with my symbol, which is a band of copper extending from 1 cubit above the tallest point of the rest of thy house, to 1 cubit underground. The houses thus marked shalt be spared from the thunderbolts I throw in mine wrath" :p
Click to expand...

Asimov made that one of his turning points in a series of essays about science gaining over religion. Apparently, the churches didn't think they should adopt these newfangled ideas as they thwarted the almighty's will. Which meant- since churches were usually the tallest structures in a town - they were hit with lightning bolts that destroyed the church whilst the brothel across the street remained standing.
 
Darat said:
Asimov made that one of his turning points in a series of essays about science gaining over religion. Apparently, the churches didn't think they should adopt these newfangled ideas as they thwarted the almighty's will. Which meant- since churches were usually the tallest structures in a town - they were hit with lightning bolts that destroyed the church whilst the brothel across the street remained standing.
Click to expand...

How Christian of that church building, offering itself to God's wrath and saving the sinners!
 
Darat said:
Asimov made that one of his turning points in a series of essays about science gaining over religion. Apparently, the churches didn't think they should adopt these newfangled ideas as they thwarted the almighty's will. Which meant- since churches were usually the tallest structures in a town - they were hit with lightning bolts that destroyed the church whilst the brothel across the street remained standing.
Click to expand...

I may have mentioned it before, but it's not even just that. Churches were also routinely used to store gunpowder in the late middle ages and renaissance and even beyond. So it's not just that they got struck by God's lightning, they routinely got such a smiting that they DETONATED.

I may have mentioned it before, but I was visiting some Eastern European town, many years ago, when the tour guide mentioned that the plaza we were in was paved with what was left of the old church after it got hit by lightning and detonated. I wasn't a particularly religious guy, but I just had to go, "so, WTH did the priest DO to annoy God THAT much" :p

So yeah, I can imagine it not being a good PR thing, is all I'm saying :p
 
jimbob said:
That would just be trolling until the industrial revolution.

"YOU WANT ME TO USE HOW MUCH COPPER?"
Click to expand...

Copper wasn't that insanely expensive in the ancient world. I mean, Egyptians routinely used copper bands to drag crushed emery around to cut stone. Some kinds of good stuff like the arsenic-rich copper, which produced the harder military-grade bronze, were more expensive, but otherwise it was a fairly common metal.

I mean, as a historical point, in Ancient Egypt the price of copper was around 1/100 of the price of the same weight of silver. For the Greeks it was more like 1/350.

Aaand... Which is probably misleading, since both were very expensive for a common person, but not prohibitively so in the case of copper.

Edit: but, hey, if I'm God I'm entitled to demand lavish displays of obedience, dammit :p
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
Copper wasn't that insanely expensive in the ancient world. I mean, Egyptians routinely used copper bands to drag crushed emery around to cut stone. Some kinds of good stuff like the arsenic-rich copper, which produced the harder military-grade bronze, were more expensive, but otherwise it was a fairly common metal.

I mean, as a historical point, in Ancient Egypt the price of copper was around 1/100 of the price of the same weight of silver. For the Greeks it was more like 1/350.

Aaand... Which is probably misleading, since both were very expensive for a common person, but not prohibitively so in the case of copper.

Edit: but, hey, if I'm God I'm entitled to demand lavish displays of obedience, dammit :p
Click to expand...

I hadn't realised that, thanks
 
HansMustermann said:
I will grant you that that makes a lot more sense, but that's not what 'intelligent design' (or for that matter any major religion) tells me that their god did. They explicitly say that God created all those species, not that evolution happened.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Evolution and the Catholic Church
Since the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859, the attitude of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has slowly been refined. For nearly a century, the papacy offered no authoritative pronouncement on Darwin's theories. In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that God created all things...
Click to expand...

Church of England Declares Evolution, Faith Are Compatible
February 12, 2010

The Church of England's governing body on Friday approved a motion that emphasizes the compatibility of belief in both God and science.

Dr. Peter Capon, a former computer science lecturer, introduced the motion arguing that "rejecting much mainstream science does nothing to support those Christians who are scientists ... or strengthen the Christian voice in the scientific area."

He urged Christians to take scientific evidence seriously and avoid prejudging science for theological reasons...

"Religious leaders around the world are coming together to elevate the quality of the discussion about this important topic. They are demonstrating to their congregations that people can accept all that modern science has learned while retaining their faith," said Michael Zimmerman, founder of Evolution Weekend and professor of Biology at Butler University in Indianapolis.

Since 2004 more than 12,400 Christian clergypersons from various denominations in the United States have signed "The Clergy Letter," expressing their belief "that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist."

In the letter, Christian clergy contend, "Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
Click to expand...


HansMustermann said:
I mean, again, your version makes more sense, but that's not what Genesis (and a few other religions I've studied), not to mention the ID nutcasery, actually say.
Click to expand...
ID is a fringe theory that few theists agree with. You didn't mention it in your OP so I didn't assume your 'god' would necessarily be doing it. However you asserted that given the power you could (and should) easily "design a species from scratch" that was much better than evolution. So you think God (If He exists) should be an ID god, and you are complaining that He isn't. Therefore unfortunately we do have to consider 'ID nutcasery', because you are proposing it.

Your assertion that 'I would be a much better ID God than God (therefore there is no God)', is a giant straw man of your own making. Without stating it you assume a very narrow definition of 'intelligent', which you then attempt to refute by bare assertion without proof.

Well I'm skeptical. Let's imagine God has to go on a little trip and leaves you with the power to look after the place while He was gone. Of course the first thing you do is dig into the human genome and 'fix' that abomination called menstruation. A few days later God comes back and the place is a mess. "Oh my <self>," cries God, "what did you do? 13.5 billion years of carefully calculated evolution and it only took you 3 days to screw it up! What the Hell were you thinking?".

But more to the point, that's not what this thread asks. Sure, you can imagine that a God works by evolution, and it might even make sense, but the question is quite explicitly: if you could design stuff by hand, instead of whatever hacks on top of other hacks evolution produced, or however else God worked... what would YOU design better?
Click to expand...
If I could, I wouldn't - especially if evolution was God's way of doing it. I wouldn't presume to know better than the supreme being that created the Universe and everything in it. But even without that belief I would be very cautious about making changes to something without being sure of the consequences - especially something as important as menstruation.

Meaningful menstruation
the process of constant renewal in menstruating species may bestow extraordinary plasticity on the endometrium, enabling it to respond to highly variable embryos, to learn from previous reproductive events, and to adapt to changing ecology. This innate adaptability explains why most women suffering miscarriage, whether sporadic or several consecutive losses, will achieve a successful pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Take away menstruation and you have to deal with all the things it is protecting against, including those we don't know about. Women might not be happy to discover that they can't have children now, or suffer cancers and other fatal diseases because you 'fixed' them.

There are people in this world who not only have your hubris but also the means to modify the Human genome, and their power will only get greater over time. Soon they may have the ability to literally 'play God' to an extent that even ID proponents could not imagine. This may have a serious effect on our survival as a species as well as individual health. I hope that once we gain that power we will use it wisely, but I fear it will fall prey to the same ills as other technologies - only worse. I hate to imagine what 'improvements' geneticists of the future may decide are good for us.
 
Darat said:
Asimov made that one of his turning points in a series of essays about science gaining over religion. Apparently, the churches didn't think they should adopt these newfangled ideas as they thwarted the almighty's will. Which meant- since churches were usually the tallest structures in a town - they were hit with lightning bolts that destroyed the church whilst the brothel across the street remained standing.
Click to expand...
Is that actually true, though? From experience, claims like that are often not based on fact but rather speculation. Given that the Catholic Church led the way in promoting science and rationality from before the time of the Enlightenment (yes, I know many here will disagree!), I'm sceptical of the claim, at least as presented.

So, Church leaders really didn't want to adopt the use of lightning rods, even while knowing the process worked, because they thought God wanted to zap their churches??? Other than one or two eccentrics, it sounds doubtful. I did a bit of googling, but didn't find anything concrete.

Apparently one of the earliest lightning rods was built by a theologian and used to protect a church:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_rod

In Europe, the lightning rod was invented by a theologian and natural scientist, Václav Prokop Diviš, between 1750 and 1754. He is the inventor of the first grounded lightning rod, which he erected on 15 July 1754 in the garden of his home in Přímětice u Znojma...

In 1756 the machine was damaged by wind and then rebuilt, and then on 10 March 1760, angry villagers of Přímětice tore down the structure, blaming Diviš for drought which struck the region that year. Later in the year, after the summer during which the thunderstorms did a lot of damage to the fields and vineyards, the people besought him to rebuild the machine, which he did in the precinct of Loucky monastery, and built another one on the top of the church tower in Přímětice.
Click to expand...

Besides the claim of lightning rods causing droughts, others accused lightning rods of causing earthquakes because of the lightning being driven underground. I can't find explicit references to anyone saying "let the lightning destroy the churches!" They might be there though.
 
Last edited:
The scientific theory of evolution is Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Any religion which supposes that a god "used" evolution rejects it in favour of some kind of Theory of Evolution by Divine Guidance. There certainly is a conflict there, whether the Catholic church acknowledges it (or even recognises it) or not.

This quote by David Attenborough sums up for me the fundamental incompatibility of science and religion: "The scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause".
 
Indeed even the RCC (the largest denomination) isn't as Darwinist as some seem to assume. Quoth Wiki, "According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six-day, twenty-four-hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God." My emphasis.

So to get back to the topic, even there there is obviously some way to imagine how it could have been guided differently. E.g., guide it some way that routes the laryngeal nerve elsewhere.

At any rate, it seems to me that even if some exceptions exist among Christians, there is plenty of room for a mental creation exercise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom