Re: Creationists
Wed, 24 Jun 1998 23:57:05 EDT

<<What would be the point in creating us, period? What need has an omnipotent
being for a purposely flawed being? This god person created people with
freewill and also with the ability and capacity for acts of nearly
unimaginable cruelty. For what possible reason? One experiments when one does
not know what the result will be. This god is omniscient. He has no need to
experiment, no doubt as to what will happen. Yet he creates these beings and
sets them spinning anyway?>>

There's lots of theoretical reasons why God would undertake to create an
imperfect being. Perhaps he's lonely, and wants someone to talk to. So it
takes a few thousand millenia for us to get to the point where we can
converse. So what? He's god, he's got the time. Then theres the idea that
if we were perfect, we wouldn't have an existence apart from God, since he's
is by all accounts perfect. Perhaps he creates for the sheer joy of creation,
and has done millions of times in the universe. We just happen to have been
one of the earlier, cruder artistic efforts. Then, of course there is the
Cop-out answer, which is that the Mind of God is ineffable, especially to
imperfect beings such as ourselves. I don't prefer that one, personally, but
I can understand it's appeal.

<<This seems to me a rather depressing idea. I prefer to believe in myself.
my own ability, imagination, adaptability. Rather than sit around wondering
what the "purpose" is to existence, i prefer to live it. To discover the
answers and the questions for myself. If the price to be paid for the
supposed comfort offered by a "better life in the hereafter" is the fear and
ignorance demanded by the religionists, i'll pass.

Heinlein once had a character remark that "one can bask in the warmth of
religion, or stand in the cold light of reason." I'll take the cold light.
It may not always comfort, but its dangers can be met and overcome. And it
beats the daylights out of groveling around on my knees begging for some aloof
being to be nice to me.

I feel that my own particular purpose is to provide a bad example for
impressionable children. :) Seriously though, I don't see how any rational
being would want an answer like that simply handed to them, assuming that such
an answer even exists. I will attempt to pull myself up by my own bootstraps,
thank you, and will succeed or fail on my own. Reason is certainly the
preferable of the two, assuming that they have to be seperate. The oddest
thing about the whole debate from what i've read so far is that most posts
combine religion and faith as one. I'll take faith over any religion anyday,
especailly since both belief systems, science and religion, require it.

Nature's id