We are so intimately familiar with our requirement for food that we rarely ever step back to ponder exactly why we were “designed” to eat. But does this requirement make more sense in light of a Christian world view, or a natural world view?
If God has designed eating, then pondering His purpose for it might give us some additional insight into His character. Conversely, if nature has designed us, then eating should serve purely natural objectives.
Eating from a Christian worldview
According to Genesis, God originally placed mankind in a garden stocked with plentiful food. Only after Adam was evicted from Eden was he forced to grow his own food.
So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.
~ Genesis 3:23
Food, of course, is necessary for us to grow and for energy. But this still leaves us with a number of unanswered questions…
1) Why design bodies that need food at all?
If there is no great spiritual point to eating, one would think God would eliminate it, or at least greatly minimize the need for it.
God could’ve created a world in which we were all powered by water, or by the sun, or by some mysterious atomic power source, or given us food that’s so concentrated that we only need to eat once a year.
In fact, I see no logical reason for God to give us physical bodies at all. Why not place us here on earth in spirit form? What is gained by encasing our spirits in meat?
2) Why make eating so time consuming that it takes time away from more important things?
By design, we humans must invest a great deal of time hassling with food. We spend time growing food, hunting food, transporting food, working to afford food, shopping for food, preparing food, cooking food, eating food, and defecating stuff that was once food.
If God exists, our quest for food must be extremely important to Him that He should demand that we dedicate so much time to it. Wouldn’t God rather have us doing something more productive with our time? Like studying scripture, or praying, or worshiping, or seeking salvation, or witnessing to others?
Designing a preoccupation with food might make sense if there were a great spiritual meaning behind it. It’s as if God has said, “I have a point I desperately want to make clear to my creation, and I can only make it clear by forcing them to spend every day obsessing over food. If they refuse to concern themselves with this issue, I will cause them to die.” But what is this all-important message?
If our purpose in life is to work out our salvation, should’t we suffer hunger pangs and die if we fail to do things like read scripture, or go to church, or ponder our existence, or worship God? Why are we punished for neglecting our physical needs, but not our spiritual needs?
Starving children search the ground for bugs to sustain them. “Cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life.” Genesis 3:17
3) Why does God sometimes make food too scarce?
Millions of people die each year from hunger and malnutrition. Yet God has ordered us to “Be fruitful and multiply.” Isn’t this self-defeating?
4) Why must eating put us at risk?
Eating itself comes with a number of inherent risks. Eating can cause: heartburn, indigestion, vomiting, diarrhea, parasites, disease, cancer and death.
Additionally, thousands of people die each year (mostly children) because of a poorly designed digestive system. When we swallow, food can become lodged in our airway, resulting in suffocation and death. Wouldn’t an intelligent designer see this potential hazard and give us one passageway for food and another for air? Why would a designer do this for ducks, geese, whales and dolphins, but not humans?
From an evolutionary standpoint, choking results in so few deaths that it isn’t worth selecting against (though any creatures that choked too easily would’ve been selected out). It makes sense for evolution not to notice such things, but an intelligent designer should know better. If we must eat, why would God make it dangerous?
5) Why predation?
Without a doubt, the absolute strangest aspect of eating is predation (animals using other animals as food). It’s as if God said, “Okay you animals, listen up! There are only two rules to this game: 1) you must eat to survive, and 2) you’re all on the menu! Begin!” This barbaric game encourages a sad and never-ending battle-to-the-death. God could’ve simply made all animals inedible, but didn’t. Why not? Is there some inherent value in having animals consume one another? What does God want us to learn from this?
We could blame predation on the fall of man, but how exactly does this work? Did God say, “Adam, I’m really disappointed in you, therefore I’m going to force all animals to suffer because of you”? These animals didn’t disobey God, yet they are made to suffer for our sin. (I’ll have more on this topic under the next question.)
Terry Pratchett, in his fictional book Unseen Academicals, describes the problem of predation this way:
“‘…one day when I was a young boy on holiday in Uberwald I was walking along the banks of a stream when I saw a mother otter with her cubs. A very endearing sight, I’m sure you will agree, and even as I watched, the mother otter dived into the water and came up with a plump salmon, which she subdued and dragged onto a half-submerged log. As she ate it, while of course it was still alive, the body split and I remember to this day the sweet pinkness of its roes as they spilled out, much to the delight of the baby otters who scrambled over themselves to feed on the delicacy. One of nature’s wonders, gentlemen: mother and children dining on mother and children. And that’s when I first learned about evil. It is built into the nature of the universe. Every world spins in pain. If there is any kind of supreme being, I told myself, it is up to all of us to become his moral superior.'”
A natural view of eating
I can imagine, in nature, a very reasonable scenario in which eating may have come to exist.
The first replicating form of life (regardless of what it may have been) would’ve had to borrow from its environment in order to obtain the raw materials necessary to continue replicating. As this life progressed, it eventually discovered that a lot of the material it needed was readily available in other nearby organisms.
Consuming ready-made proteins saved predators from having to expend time and energy building them from scratch. This gave predators an advantage: it allowed them to grow and replicate faster than non-predators, and so nature favored predation, regardless of any ethical implications.
The first cells to remain conjoined in a colony found this kind of partnership mutually beneficial. They could work together to encompass other cells (or groups of cells) and consume and share the yummy contents.
Over time, nature favored specialized changes in these colonies that assisted the whole organism in detecting, pursuing, capturing and/or digesting other organisms. Size and speed were decided advantages; the larger and faster an organism became, the less likely it was to be devoured, and the more likely it was to be the devourererer…er.
From single cells on up to humans, we all perform the same routine: we consume, extract, excrete, replicate and repeat. We exist to feed and protect the colony, so that we may all reproduce once again.
Conclusion
The Bible says “Love thy neighbor,” nature says “Consume thy neighbor.” Which is most likely to be responsible for how and what we eat?
I’m sure, if we tried hard enough, we could create some reasonable sounding spiritual metaphor for eating, but that explanation doesn’t seem to come quite as easily as the natural one.
Eating seems spiritually unnecessary, counterproductive and risky; and predation is unconscionable, gratuitous and cruel. Why would a loving designer build such a process?
Nature, on the other hand, has a very good reason for letting life consume other life, albeit an unethical one. But nature cannot think, and thereby has a very good excuse for not designing life ethically. What’s God’s excuse?
Bon Appétit!
500 Questions about God & Christianity 
Nicely done. I was going to write something about this eventually, but now i really don’t have to!
Again another wonderfully thought out question. I can’t think of a thing to add.
I haven’t seen this one too much. My old religion, Jehovah’s Witnesses (a cult) would explain some of this. I’ll try to be devil’s advocate:
1) Why design bodies that need food at all?
So that we would have variety to life, to make life more enjoyable. That’s why he made all of the different types of foods also.
2) Why make eating so time consuming that it takes time away from more important things?
Just a necessary thing in order to give us enjoyment. There is still enough time to worship, pray, meditate, etc.
3) Why does God sometimes make food too scarce?
This stemmed from humans becoming imperfect after Adam sinned. If humans were perfect, this wouldn’t happen.
4) Why must eating put us at risk?
When we were perfect in the Garden no food was bad for us, but our imperfect bodies gradually became worse and worse and now some foods are bad for us, can give us diseases etc.
5) Why predation?
Animals cannot worship God, so God doesn’t really care about them at all. Animals are under humans and God created animals for human enjoyment.
Their apologetics are not perfect, though. Why make it so that lions want to eat humans? They claim that in the future Paradise Earth animals will all be peaceful and “eat dust” or “all be herbivores”, but like you said, if God can do this, why not do it NOW, why couldn’t He have done it when he FIRST CREATED THEM? ANIMALS DIDN’T DO ANYTHING TO GOD, WHY PUNISH THEM? It doesn’t make an ounce of sense, and my parents can’t explain it either. (yet they live in denial)
This seems a bit contrived to me, personally.
Is God concerned with the efficiency of eating? With how effective it is? With predation? With the difficulties in finding food?
Who knows.
But it seems rather simple to say that making people perfectly well provided-for would leave them without any sense of their dependence (just as pampered children don’t realize that they don’t deserve everything they get). Why would we assume that God is interested in making life run smoothly?
I’ve never seen indication in any major religion that human, let alone animal, safety and comfort top the list of God’s concerns, yet this seems to be the basis of the comparison here.
Hi Debilis,
If God knows how many hairs are on our heads (Luke 12:7), then I would say yes, God is very concerned with the various aspects of our existence. Turning to Adam and Eve, God seemed interested in making sure their lives ran as smoothly as possible, and the Bible even promises us: “God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:19).
But I don’t think it’s intellectually satisfying to believe that God uses extremes like starvation to increase our dependence on him. I couldn’t look into the eyes of a dying and starving child and say, “God did this to increase your dependence on him.” Such punishments are too extreme, and that is the problem.
I have no objection to appropriately dispensed discipline, but God’s system of justice in this world appears completely random. A child killer gets off scot-free, while an innocent child is made to suffer for no apparent reason. In order to reconcile this kind of illogical discipline with a benevolent God, we are forced to assume that God must punish all the evil in the next life.
But even so… why would a benevolent God postpone punishment of the wicked until the next life, and then allow for the blood of the innocent to be shed in this one? God is going out of his way to protect evil. He is saying, “I am not going to punish the wicked here, but I WILL punish those who never deserved it.” How does this make any sense? God could’ve left us all in Eden, where all the innocent children would grow up in a world free from unjust punishment. Only when they proved themselves guilty should they be punished (either immediately or in the next life).
A young child should not be considered “guilty unto proven innocent.” Nature, however, doesn’t give a shit about young children. Nature will kill a baby just to preserve the parasite that causes malaria. But God… God should really know better.
The traditional answer to the problem of evil is free will. God allows people to act as we choose, which has a great deal of terrible consequences.
While it is emotionally and personally distressing (for both of us, I’d wager) to have to wait for justice, it is a blink of an eye relative to eternity. It doesn’t seem a simple conclusion at all that needing to wait for justice shows a lack of existence on God’s part.
No theist I know denies that there are a great many things about the universe that are messed up. But if one assumes that these things are wrong – that is, they go against the way things ought to be – then one is assuming a universal standard of goodness and is affirming the major premise in the moral argument for God’s existence.
If, however, one is simply saying that suffering is more compatible with God’s non-existence than his existence, I’d wonder why. All suffering in this life is infinitesimal when compared to the afterlife.
Moreover, many wonder how suffering is compatible with a godless universe in that the existence of life at all seems overwhelmingly improbable on atheism (given the unlikeliness of the physical constants of the universe which support life). To whatever end theism has to offer an explanation for suffering, atheism has to offer an explanation for life in the first place.
So far, the only explanation to gain much support is the multiverse hypothesis. However, it is neither supported by evidence nor well understood (even by cosmologists). No working mechanism that could produce an unthinkable number of universes, each with slightly different physical causes, has been conceived – let alone adequately defended.
This means that, at best, the position that God exists and the position that he does not are at a standstill. If any other argument for God’s existence has any purchase at all, theism is at a slight advantage unless there is an equally strong argument which positively supports the non-existence of God.
None of this proves God’s existence, of course, but simply to say that natural evil (of which eating is one example) is a strong argument against God definitely overlooks much of the issue.
The author is arguing that the God of the Bible is illogical, therefore it is improbable that he exists. He is not arguing for the non-existence of a creator or creators in general. (Although I will get into that later.) Just keep in mind that you are talking about two different issues. While nothing we say can disprove a creator or creators of the universe, we CAN basically disprove the God of the Bible based on logic. (If the God of the Bible exists, he would be malevolent, or at least indifferent / changes his mind whenever he wants to. BUT, the Bible says God is benevolent, therefore the FULL God of the Bible cannot exist.)
As the author said, God could have easily punished Adam & Eve, and create new people (if the laws of the universe really state that sin has to be passed down parent to child, which is head-scratching in the least, but let’s give the Bible the benefit of the doubt here). What we have now is a guilty until proven innocent system, which isn’t even how MAN-MADE justice systems work, much less divinely-made. If God was content to have man live comfortable in the Garden of Eden, why are we all being punished for Adam? Jesus came along and God said, “Aw, scratch the whole plan, let’s just let them live up here instead!” God changes his mind? Eh? What was the whole point of Adam & Eve if he was just going to scratch the whole plan later on?
No matter how illogical, it would make more sense that Earth is a trial ground. If you are good (even if you have to suffer), you go to heaven and life forever in peace, if you are bad you don’t. But that’s not how God planned it at first! That’s why it is non-nonsensical.
Now about you saying about the impossible odds for life to form in the universe. You are right, but that doesn’t mean we can jump to explaining the universe with a creator anymore so than you can jump to believing in Bigfoot since there is no evidence to disprove it.
Regularly we don’t believe in something until solid evidence is brought up for it. Why is it somehow different for God?
I agree that the author is arguing that the God of the abrahamic faiths is unlikely to exist. That was exactly the position to which I was speaking.
Yes, I understand what is being said about Adam & Eve. This is an excellent rebuttal of some views of this story, but is simply irrelevant to what most theists believe. Traditional Christian theology contains nothing about God scratching his plan.
As far as the odds of life in the universe, this is evidence for a creator. I completely agree that it isn’t conclusive by itself (i.e. we shouldn’t “jump” to it), but this is not an argument from “there is no evidence to disprove it”.
But I’ve heard almost as many definitions of “solid evidence” as people who have used the phrase. What I’ve not seen is a definition which excludes all evidence for God’s existence, but includes non-theistic answers to life’s big questions. As such, I tend not to be impressed by arguments from the lack of evidence.
Thank you both for those interesting comments. I may disagree with you, Debilis, but I do give you credit for knowing your stuff. But if you want to retain your faith, I’d encourage you to stop digging. 😉
You’re both right when it comes to this question being particularly directed at the God of Christianity.
When it comes to free will, I like to ask “Did Adam and Eve have free will?” If no, then they were forced to sin, and it wasn’t a fair test. If yes, then it IS possible for humans to have free will in a perfect environment.
If God were perfectly benevolent, we should all awake in Eden, with no natural evils like malaria, starvation, cancer, hurricanes, earthquakes, plagues, predation, poison oak, etc. The ONLY evil that should exist in this free-willed environment is that which comes directly from mankind. If THAT were the case, we could begin to reason that God was benevolent because all evil sprung from man (though we could still blame God for choosing to make evil men instead of just good ones).
How do I know something like predation is immoral unless God gave me moral values? Mostly due to my ability to empathize. We humans can look at something and ask ourselves, “How would that make me feel if it happened to me?” and know it’s wrong to do that thing to others. For example, I wouldn’t want to be a slave, so I shouldn’t make someone my slave, no matter how much it benefits me to do so. Abraham’s God, on the other hand, doesn’t always see things that way.
“All suffering in this life is infinitesimal when compared to the afterlife.”
I address this in question #17, point #9. Just because you buy someone off with eternal life in heaven doesn’t make what you did to them okay. And in the case of animals, they are never rewarded for their suffering! They are sometimes called into existence against their will just to suffer and be made food for other animals! What kind of God does that?
I cover the origins questions under #5 & 6. But these questions are always difficult when we lack complete information. But if history is any indication, when we think something unknown must be caused by gods, it isn’t.
“This is an excellent rebuttal of some views of this story, but is simply irrelevant to what most theists believe. Traditional Christian theology contains nothing about God scratching his plan.”
So traditional Christian theology does not accept the story of Adam & Eve or… what?
I HAVE heard some people think Adam & Eve was not meant to be taken literal. What is there to say to that? If people pick a choose what to accept in the Bible and still call themselves Christians, then I can’t reason with them. “God didn’t really mean to let the Israelites have slaves, multiple wives, or kill and rape people in other civilizations!”
But maybe I am going off on a tangent and you aren’t saying that at all. Please explain.
“As far as the odds of life in the universe, this is evidence for a creator.”
Yes, until we have an conclusive enough answer for something, we shouldn’t believe in anything. The odds of life is very non-conclusive, because we don’t know if the odds are not in our favor because we barely know anything about that.
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from divinity.”
So there really cannot be “solid evidence” for a creator. But if for instance we saw some voice speak from the skies and then the principle laws of physics somehow changed, or our DNA changed magically, or something of that sort, then that would be good evidence for a creator.
Heck, would changing our thoughts so that we KNOW he exists violate our free will? I don’t think so. We would still be able to deny Him (or Them) and do our own thing, but we would know they (He) were (was) the creator(s).
Why couldn’t a creator or creators do that?
If the creator or creators gave me the capacity of logic and reason, and then shows us no evidence for his creation except supposed “odds of the universe happening”, then They/He cannot blame us for choosing not to believe in creator(s) until more evidence is shown. =P
I don’t know why reading the Bible differently than other people is seen as throwing those stories out. With regard to the things you claim the Bible supports, it never occurred to me that the Bible said any of these things until I meeting a particularly angry atheist one day. I understood these things very differently.
The same is true of evidence. I have no idea what sort of evidence you are demanding, but I know of no evidence for secular views of ethics, meaning, and value which are supported by a stricter sort of evidence than theistic answers to the same questions.
You’re certainly free to reject belief in God. I make no claim that the case is obviously closed. But these demands that the atheist is the authority on how the Bible should be interpreted, and what evidence should be accepted for which claim, will not lead us closer to the truth.
Hi. I am not angry, and I’m not sure why you think so. (ad hominem) I’m perfectly content with my life and when debating with theists. =)
I also did not demand to have authority on how the Bible should be interpreted. (straw man)
What exactly are you speaking about when you say the things I claim the Bible supports?
Are you saying that theistic view of ethics, meaning, and value are evidence for God? If so, can you please explain? That’s pretty confusing to me.
Thank you! =)
These posts hardly touch the main topic but I believe we have the capacity to using logic and reason. I also believe that for god to give evidence to anyone that demanded it, contradicts his plan and make God inferior. I believe the bible and many other type of evidence are sufficient.
Sufficient for you maybe, but not for Thomas. Thomas actually saw Jesus do all his miracles in person — and STILL didn’t believe.
Thomas probably wanted to see Jesus fly like superman. Even then he still wouldn’t believe. He probably wanted to test Jesus with a bullet. A man like this is a risk.
Are you serious? Use logic, please.
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from divinity.”
If Jesus flew, why does that make him the Son. He could be the Son, yes, but he could also be an alien. Flying is not evidence for divity, or anyone who has been on a plane or a jetpack is divine!
We can walk on water today. We can do many of things Jesus did today. If the story of Jesus was real and not made up (which I don’t believe), it could have very well been an alien. Moreover, even if the Bible DID say Jesus flew (well he did rise to heaven, but I guess you didn’t mean that type of flying), what makes the Bible trustworthy? Absolutely nothing. The Bible has erroneous information, and dated views on morality. If a guy was able to fly like superman (without a device) today and we had proof of this, and then said he was God or Jesus, then that would be more evidence than we have now. Especially if scientists were not able to explain it and it went against the laws of physics (making ET improbable).
But we don’t have that do we?
God expects us to just believe in him based on words!? If so, why not follow Apollo, Zeus, or Osiris? Krishna maybe?
How does giving us evidence contradict His plan and make him inferior? That simply doesn’t make sense and does not agree with logic. What if Krishna said the same thing? It contradicts his plan to give us evidence of his creation! Why not follow him and believe He is real?
It’s more likely that there were no miracles at all and Thomas was the only rational member in the group. Or perhaps even more likely… it’s all a work of fiction.
@Garbonzo
“Flying is not evidence for divity”. – That’s right, it is not. Unbelievers will want to test god every way including gas chamber, chemical, biological, nuke and even fake their believes just to get in to heaven so they can test god. Common, one Lucifer is enough. You think god is that dumb? You can’t get proof unless you challenge god. And what happen when you challenge god?
Thank you for the kind words. Obviously, we disagree, but I do appreciate that you take care to do so thoughtfully.
As far as your thoughts, in the hopes of keeping this short, I’ll say simply that I have a different view of what eden entails than you. Christianity claims that we are heading toward the thing you describe, and I see no reason to believe that animals won’t receive some kind of reward. I don’t claim to know.
I will have a look at those other questions. I am genuinely interested.
Hi. Thank you for keeping your comments civilized and letting us have a kind nice debate. =D
So you believe Earth will eventually become Eden again? (I have not heard this from mainstream Christianity, but it is what my old religion believed.) If not, then what?
Also, do you have a Scripture for the reward animals will receive? If not, would you not be putting words in God’s mouth based on your own morality? It seems to me God doesn’t care too much about animals if he didn’t allow for 1 scripture that shows their fate, but then again I am assuming you cannot come up with one. =P
Thank you! =)
Thanks for the kind words!
Yes, I do believe that the proper understanding of Christianity is that world will be returned to Eden (that is what is actually meant, I’d say, by “the New Heavens and the New Earth”). My favorite theologian loves this point.
As for scripture about animals receiving rewards, I don’t claim to know. I assume that there will be animals in the new Eden, just as there was in the original, but, no, there is no scripture that expressly claims that.
I hasten to add that this doesn’t seem to be anything more than that there is little said, by any account, of eschatological details in the Bible. There is very little said about human fate, most or all of it metaphorical; I wouldn’t expect any direct claims about animals.
Mostly, I don’t claim to know. I get the impression that God, as understood by Christianity, loves creation, and will therefore preserve it. But that is nearly all I can say.
All I am saying is that it seems to me that the God of the Bible has a pretty selective love of creation. After all, he was okay with slaves, multiple wives, rape and murder of innocents. Unless you don’t take the old testament seriously….
I do take it seriously, but I definitely don’t read it this way. The fact that people did these things doesn’t, for me, translate to God’s approval. In fact, the stories in question highlight the problems that are caused by these institutions.
Have you read the whole old testament? A lot of these stories were under God’s direct command.
Yes, I’ve read it.
I don’t know which particular sections you’re referencing, of course, and do tend to take these things on a case-for-case basis.
The important thing to note on the general issue is that I am not a fundamentalist. I’ve never seen any justification for the anachronisms they insist upon.
You don’t have to be a fundamentalist to at least accept that God created predation, and that is not what a loving creator would do. It can’t be any simpler than that.
That’s actually my issue; it strikes me as too simple. I’d say that we should consider more than that one fact in considering what character God, if he exists, would have.
There are plenty more. Just search this site.
Yes, I completely agree that I should always be keeping an eye out for arguments against my beliefs. That is, after all, what I’m asking others to do.
As to those others, I’ll see as I get to each of them.
This is a question that I haven’t given much thought recently, but this post is definitely well thought out. I’m adding it to my list of unanswered questions. When I did consider the problem of predation, I thought it was to keep numbers in control, then I realised that this was actually part of a naturalist explanation and apparently in eden there was no ‘crowd control’ so to speak. Since then I haven’t been able to satisfatorily explain the concept of kill or be killed.
Since you mentioned a quote from Terry Pratchett, I thought I’d add a quote I read in one of his books. “In fact, no gods anywhere play chess… Gods prefer simple, vicious games, where you Do Not Achieve Transcendence but Go Straight To Oblivion; a key to the understanding of all religion is that a god’s idea of amusement is Snakes and Ladders with greased rungs.” This is probably more relevant to your post on the existence of so many religions – trying to find the ‘true’ one.
Explaining evil by free will has always confused me. It isn’t a child’s free will to be born into a family of poverty, to grow up (if they grow up at all) starving in an inadequate environment. Actually, if I’m not wrong, I think that religions (and Christianity) teach that God is the one who decides the circumstances of your birth. Free will of humans causes evil? I really don’t understand. Another thing is that God is said to be omniscient, and (forgive me if I’m wrong), but God knew that Peter would reject Jesus three times, which means he knows what decisions every human is going to make, and the consequences of those decisions.
What is the meaning of eating?
The answer is simple, survival necessity, so that the objective of the mission can be fulfilled. Just like when one is sent off to college.
So college is necessary for survival? Wut. O.o But that is besides the point.
Who made eating a necessity? God. According to the Bible. So there is no reason to believe he could not have made it necessary. That’s what this article is saying.
When you were sent off for college you need food to survive so you can accomplish your mission. Is that understood?
God made it necessary so you can accomplish you need to do.
“That’s right, it is not. Unbelievers will want to test god every way including gas chamber, chemical, biological, nuke and even fake their believes just to get in to heaven so they can test god. Common, one Lucifer is enough. You think god is that dumb? You can’t get proof unless you challenge god. And what happen when you challenge god?”
Hmm. Let me test and see what happens when I challenge God: “God I challenge you to give me some evidence you exist!” I just said it. Nothing happening. =( Oh well. You live in denial, as there is nothing else that you don’t require evidence for but the religion you were born in. Also, how could you fake your beliefs and get to heaven when God knows everything? *face-palm*
“When you were sent off for college you need food to survive so you can accomplish your mission. Is that understood?
God made it necessary so you can accomplish you need to do.”
I believe you are trolling now as this make no sense in English.
Sorry for an error in the last sentence – missing “what.” Let me rephrase it, God made it a necessity so that you have enough time to accomplish what you needed to accomplish.
“Challenge God,” Let me give you an example. Suppose if you expect Microsoft to show you what Microsoft is so you can work and be a part of Microsoft, what do you think would happen to your expectation?
“God made it a necessity so that you have enough time to accomplish what you needed to accomplish.”
That still doesn’t make sense. Eating takes up time, so people might not have enough time to accomplish what is needed.
Microsoft is listed on the corporation index and Bill Gates / Paul Allen is visible on camera or up close in person.
Eating takes up time? What would you be doing that you don’t have time to eat? Sounds like insanity.
Seeing Bill Gate doesn’t prove he exists. the one you saw could be a fake Bill.
Do you want to get into conspiracy theories now? God won’t reveal himself to anyone but mentally ill people. Bill Gates does not.
Eating takes up a lot of time. Not only the time it takes to eat, but to prepare, to ship, all of the labor involved is enormous. All of this and yet there are still starving kids in Africa. All of that suffering could have been prevented if God made us run on solar energy.
God does not reveal himself to the mentally ill. So far Moses was the only guy that god came up and talk to him.
Eating is part of your job. If it wasn’t for Adam and Eve we would not have to eat and die. God did make us immortal. It’s man’s fault and we have to deal with it.
Yeah, a parent punishing his grandchildren for something his son did. Perfectly just.
There is no reason God had to take so long (2000+ years now) even if Jesus really did need to die.
It wasn’t necessary for punishment. It’s more of a procedural process to obtain selection. Man is made fully aware of their choices, and through the choice it comes the selection.
It takes so long because so many people still have not heard the news and perhaps, God has not had enough of people. Look at the multiverses. Trillions of stars and expending.
There ratio of Christians to non-Christians is a lot on the non-Christian side. It’s increasing every day. If God was behind Christianity, that should not happen. It’s just common sense. Especially if it was true and believable, there would be millions of new converts every day. Yet this is not the case. If God ended this Earth a few years ago, a lot more people would have been saved than today, and that is no changing any time soon (unless some miracle happens supporting Christianity, but then if God wanted to/could do that, why didn’t he do it earlier?).
Also, this is God we are talking about. Almighty God. There should be no laws restricting him from doing anything he wants to. Jesus should not have been necessary, yet he was. This world continuing should not be necessary, yet it does. If this is not punishment, what is it? If your child is in pain and suffering and *you have the power to stop it*, you are punishing the child, are you not?
Do you think God is dumber than human? Why do you think government never tell you what UF0s are? What’s going on in area-5I? What would happen if you demand the government to tell you about UF0? You might just end up in the FB1/N5A watch/terrorist list. Even I don’t want to use the correct letter to tell you this. Common, God is far more intelligent than human. If you don’t want to believe you don’t have to, but enough evidence to suggest his existence is widely available; and you’re not going to get the evidence you want.
“There should be no laws restricting him from doing anything he wants to” – Do you want god to be a dictator?
*facepalm*
You said it better than I could have bro. =D I’m done. Haha.
@Daniela. The god described in the Biblical accounts is a dictator. The Bible claims it is an entity that has dictated EVERYTHING in this universe. The topic question was more about wether such a god that is responsible for the creation of this universe can be seen also as a benevolent dictator. While making this world alledgedly a god dictated creatures to eat each other while with the alledged unlimited power this god could have chosen a less awkward method of energy consumption. Hence, the question is about wether such an entity as described in the Bible is real, because either it seems to be not all-mighty, or not “benevolent”, or not the creator.
Did you know that most Christians do not believe in the UFOs? Some of them disbelieve them from the same position as most adherents of most other religions (and atheists), that you simply should not believe in anything untill you actually have enough actual evidence. Others because the Biblical account claims humans are special in that we are supposed to be the spitting images of the creator of the entire universe. The existance of extraterrestials with more advanced technology than ours, would seriously undermine the idea of our special nature as the crown of the creation.
UFOs have sufficient evidence for those who research them. Physist Michio Kaku talks about them. The question is if ET is responsible for them or are they secret terrestrial objects. Tbh, either way, the government has been covering up this secret for a long time. Of course it could be a secret government project, but why keep it under wraps for so long? Questions but no answers.
UFO has real objective existence and most intelligent people know that. Having said that, I’m 99% sure Michio and Bill nye know what UFOs are; but I’m also 99% sure we’re not going to tell you shit about them. You will only get run-arounds. Likewise, I’m decline to give any more reasons as to why god doesn’t show up. Really, I have been giving too much already.
@ rautakyy
You have demonstrated to have some mental deficiency in your thought/comprehension so with that I’m not going to waste my time.
@Daniela, no I have not. You have made, that claim before without providing any evidence to back it up.
And besides, even if I was batshit crazy, that would not refute any of my arguments as such. Would it? Even insane people sometimes make justified claims, but what can we tell about people who make claims without providing evidence?
I treat you as an equal commentor and try to have a meaningfull discussion, allthough to me you seem to hold some rather unplausible beliefs you seem to give very little evidence for, or justification to. Would it be too much, for you to treat me with the same courtesy?
Not sure how we went from eating to UFOs… but I’ll add that I too am highly skeptical. However, I would consider them more plausible than things like ghosts and spirits. If life came to exist here, then it could certainly happen elsewhere.
Found a short video with Dr. Michio Kaku’s views on UFOs here:
As well his interesting take on God (a point I may have to explore further):
But I recognize it’s possible to find scientists who are Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, etc., so I don’t usually put too much stock in any one scientist, they still have to provide evidence for their claims.
And I definitely don’t subscribe to the conspiracy theories that say ALL governments are interested in covering up ALL evidence for alien life (as if they even could). Heck, every time NASA finds the smallest thing that could hint at life on Mars, they go and blab it to the entire world! Not exactly the actions of a government trying to keep such things under wraps.
I think belief in UFOs has a lot in common with belief in religion. They both have ideas that seem to evolve over time, there’s a lot of confirmation bias, and a lot of people who just really want to believe in them. And like religion, there are a lot of personal stories, but little actual evidence. Even Dr. Kaku admits we’re still missing the smoking gun when it comes to UFOs.
You miswatched (?) the video. He didn’t say we are missing the smoking gun with it comes to UFOs. He said we are missing the smoking gun when it comes to those UFOs being ET. There ARE UFOs. Documented. UFOs simply mean Unidentified Flying Object. That can be anything. It just means that it cannot be explained by the public.
UFOs based on what is documented and videos that can be verified have been around for awhile. (disc and triangle shapes are the most common) What are the chances that no one on this planet knows what they are? Someone has to know. And since this information is not public (and verified), the logical conclusion is that it is being covered up. By whom? Okay, you got me, maybe the government IS completely clueless, but again, what are the chances of that?
About NASA: There is a difference between microbial life and advanced life, or smart life like humans.
Even then, if you are keeping up with curiosity, someone said there was going to be BIG news announced in a few days, but then a few days later, SOMEONE ELSE (not the same guy) said it was nothing and the guy was just being presumptuous. An expert on these matters being presumptuous? The hell…. You don’t just make a mistake over something you say is BIG news. You be sure about big news. You triple check big news. Then again it could be nothing. But to say NASA is the most open and transparent organization in the world is another thing all together.
But anyway, my original point is to not confuse UFOs with automatically being ET related, because even though ET enthusiasts use UFOs as evidence to support their claims, ET is not proven, UFOs are.
Agreed, I don’t doubt that there have been flying objects that have gone unidentified, and that they may not be of extra-terrestrial origin. These are indeed two separate claims.
I think the “one for the history books” announcement by NASA was actually a genuine misunderstanding that got out of hand (details here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/11/27/nasa_mars_discovery_misunderstanding_mission_leader_excited_about_entire.html).
Have you heard of the Morristown UFO hoax? It was an interesting social experiment, where the perpetrators floated 5 flares tied to large balloons. This resulted in a number of interesting eye-witness accounts such as, “These things were moving fast, holding formation, and then moving in three different directions,” and “We were driving on Hanover, when all of a sudden we see these lights literally zip over our car.” Why did people say these things? Who knows, but it just shows how eye-witness accounts aren’t always reliable.
I’m no expert on the subject, but so far I’ve never see anything to make me believe these things are anything but man-made.
There are videos that are not hoaxes, however, but yes, they could be man-made. It might be Tony Stark productions. =)
Tony Stark, lol.
I’m a bit more old-school, my favorite fictional skeptic is Han Solo… “I’ve flown from one side of this galaxy to the other, and I’ve seen a lot of strange stuff, but I’ve never seen anything to make me believe that there’s one all-powerful Force controlling everything. ‘Cause no mystical energy field controls my destiny. It’s all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense.” 😉
I actually meant a rich billionaire who makes his own technology and flies it through the air, ahahahaha.
Ah, I get ya.
Yeah it was probably a misunderstanding. =)
Let me just say “UFO” is the term used by the public or less-than intelligent people. Really, in reality there is no such thing as “unidentified”.
Michio Kaku is a real scientist. His views on God, whatever they are, will be scientific. He did a special for BBC showing people how to think critically about God.
Michio: “I imagine that eternal life was a powerful incentive for people who worshiped here (Well’s Cathedral). … The problem today though, is tIhat many of us is more skeptical. To get everlasting life in heaven, you have to trust that heaven actually exists. Speaking as a scientist, I think that there is a problem with regards to the afterlife and religious immortality, and that is there’s no proof that it exists. Remarkable claims require remarkable proof. But maybe, you don’t need proof. Well, I do.” – Micho Kaku, BBC Video: There Here After. “
The only good thing for Dr. Kaku when he’s presented with a claim, is that we can say a particular claim has been looked at by a real scientist. However, he’s most unlikely able to make a better conclusion than the rest of us. The thing is, If he’s to use the word “ghost”, “god”, “alien” or “government secret project” his career (or perhaps his life) may be doomed.
Michio Kaku wrote a blog piece about him being able to say “god” and not blush. Look it up. He is a real scientist and a good man.
I think Han Solo was later vindicated in his view by the new prequels in the Star Wars saga. The Jedi of the “more civilized era” viewed the “Force” as a natural phenomenon of these “midicloriads”, or what ever. They claimed it binds living creatures together, but did they claim it “controls” them? No. I know it is fictional, but entertaining. And a good fiction is like a succesfull lie, it needs a taste of reality to make it plausible. One cultural phenomenon, that is captured nicely by the Star Wars movies, is how the “knowledge” of the select few, easily becomes a myth and “nothing but a sad old religion” of sorts.
When a government is not very transparent and a hides stuff from the citizens, eventually some of it will be revealed. That will greatly reduce the plausibility of any such government. It will also cause all sorts of conspiracy theories and myths. But this works similarly in all fields of human life, when a small number of people are privy to some secret. Regardless, if that secret is true or not, some of it will leak out and create further conspiracy theories and myths. Religions are human constructions build to prey on this fact. They are hoaxes build on myths of older stories, that are most often fictional, but may just hold a spark of truth to them to appeal to people. However, just like pyramid schemes most people involved are not even aware, that their natural skepticism, or should I say curiosity, is being twisted and used by others. Who claim to give them answers to questions none of these people actually have. However, if skepticism is not suppressed by the society, then valid questions will arise (like what is the metaphysical meaning of eating) and myths will crumble.
UFOs are a typical example how, people jump into conclusions about anything, that they cannot identify. What are the odds, that they are flying chariots of strange gods? What about the chances, that they are the vehicles of extraterrestials from other worlds? Or are they simply military experiments of governments trying to hide their advanced technology?
Did you know that the Japanese had planned to build a fleet of aircraft carrier submarines to attack west coast of the US the Panama canal and even the Eastern coast of US? Well, in the US nobody knew until the war was over. The Japanese even built a couple of these secret phantom aircraft carriers, but to no awail, because the US had prepared their own secret weapon, that effectively ended the war. It is human cultural tradition to try to gain the upper hand by hiding the ace in the sleeve. Where as this proves that governments are indeed capable of witholding experimental military research from the masses, it does not rule out the possibility of Extraterrestials. But what do we know about such beings? That, if they have reached us, their technolgy has to be extremely advanced in comparrison to our own, if they are capable of crossing the enormous void between solar systems. That would suggest our governments could not hide their existance even, if our governments wanted to. So, either there are no extraterrestials on earth, or they are deliberately hiding. A bit like god(s).
To me it seems prudent to assume, that what ever technological is wittnessed by humans today, the most likeliest explanation is human activity, because of all the reason for unexplainable events, or phenomenon natural causes are most likeliest. The lightning was not revealed to exist because Thor or Zeus were there to create it, but because of natural reasons. The diseases do not exist because of demons or illtempered spirits, but because of germs. Therefore it is also more prudent to assume, that any UFOs that would not fall under the gategory of hoaxes, false identifying, or secret human activity (if there indeed are any other sorts) are more likelier to be the craft of extraterrestial cultures than the vehicles of gods.
Yet to me the extraterrestials fall to the same gategory as the god(s) in that they are very much like “deus ex machina”. An explanation without explanation. That said, I must confess, that to me the universe is vast enough to withold billions of worlds with billiards of different life forms completely different from ours and all the imaginable possiblities to have created culture, technology and science far beyond our own. In all honesty, if you were an alien monitoring our planet, would you be inclined to make contact with the most prominent species here, that is armed to the teeth and filled with hate for other representatives of the same species only because of their slightly different culture, or perplexion?
Wow. I really enjoyed reading this. Thank you for typing all of this up for the benefit of not too many. I agree completely.
Ditto!
Well, thank you. I write rather rapidly, but also to clear my own views and thoughts to myself. However, you are wellcome and it is nice to know that someone appriciates the perspective one has to offer.
To me this entire conversation has been very interresting even though it strayed from the topic of eating to UFOs. To me everyones input is important, even the input of those people I do not agree with. Add to that the fact, that I can not praise enough this blog, for making the 500 questions. I allways await a new question with unquenchable thirst. A kind of healthy addiction.
Thanks, I’m just glad someone reads it. 😉
Haha 500Q, you’re being too modest. I have a feeling you’re getting more readers than you know! =)
I have a feeling he knows every reader he gets. 😉
haha 🙂 maybe you are right!
I very much enjoy your ‘democratic’ approach with your posts, 500. I too lean heavily toward nature because “nature” is indeed oblivious to human perceived right and wrong. Consumption of things (energy, matter, organisms) is by nature (no pun intended) quite egocentric from an objective point-of-reference. Yet, by social devices we’re taught to ‘worship’ our growing bodies; take care of them, which by nature we must consume to accomplish this. The way I perhaps side-step this line of inquiry & discussion is by admitting, embracing, that all I’ve “consumed” in my life WILL INDEED return to the Earth and cosmos one fine day — and fortunately (or unfortunately for some) my children will benefit (not benefit?) from my consumption that I received from MY parents! HAH! I’m cracking my infinite self up! 😉
I’ve always been fond of the idea of having my dead body laid out in a field after my death, so that in some small way I could pay back nature, and feed her the way she fed me. But in our society this is a little taboo.
HAH! That gives new meaning to the slur “Go EAT yourself!” :p