Theists, how do you explain natural evil and bad design?

[AnimatedDirt]

Okay snark.  So you disagree that us having the cancer resistant gene would be a better design?

Who said we don't have the genes for cancer resistance?

[Ali]

Okay snark.  So you disagree that us having the cancer resistant gene would be a better design?

Who said we don't have the genes for cancer resistance?

Well, if we do then they must be faulty in plenty of us, because accordng to the WHO cancer is the leading cause of death worldwide.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs297/en/

C'mon, if god could give mole rats much better cancer protection, why not us too?

[AnimatedDirt]

C'mon, if god could give mole rats much better cancer protection, why not us too?

I'm not trying to dispute that cancer is a leading cause of death...or THE leading cause.

Again...how do YOU know this god didn't give us better cancer protection?  And again...does every person die of cancer?

[hismikeness]

As an interesting side note, with all this talks of naked mole rats, I thought I was on a few different message boards (sports related) on which I go by the handle "nakedmolerat".

As for the poor design sidetrack that this thread has taken, I've always thought that a poor design in the human body is using the same hole for eating/drinking and breathing. Usually everything works as it should, but for some reason every now and then it doesn't and I just know I am going to suffocate to death on that sip of water.

Also, tendinitis. That is bad design. And it hurts like a bastard too.

[Ali]

C'mon, if god could give mole rats much better cancer protection, why not us too?

I'm not trying to dispute that cancer is a leading cause of death...or THE leading cause.

Again...how do YOU know this god didn't give us better cancer protection?  And again...does every person die of cancer?

...........I feel like you're being a little obtuse here.

Mole rats never die of cancer.  Like literally never.  You can't even give a mole rat cancer, even if you try really really hard.  http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_mouse_trap/2011/11/naked_mole_rats_can_they_help_us_cure_cancer_.html

On the other hand,  13% of people who died in 2009 died of cancer.  I don't see how you can argue that we don't know that mole rats have better cancer protection than we do.  And the question is - if god designed mole rats to be cancer free, why wouldn't/couldn't he design people the same way?

[AnimatedDirt]

As an interesting side note, with all this talks of naked mole rats, I thought I was on a few different message boards (sports related) on which I go by the handle "nakedmolerat".

As for the poor design sidetrack that this thread has taken, I've always thought that a poor design in the human body is using the same hole for eating/drinking and breathing. Usually everything works as it should, but for some reason every now and then it doesn't and I just know I am going to suffocate to death on that sip of water.

Also, tendinitis. That is bad design. And it hurts like a bastard too.

Again...where is your solution?  Where is your design that we may see how and where the breathing hole is being both aesthetic and functional...don't forget to show your work...rerouting nerves and muscles and how you plan on changing the genetic code to make such a change exactly to your design.

[AnimatedDirt]

...........I feel like you're being a little obtuse here.

Not trying to be obtuse.  Asking relevant questions.

Mole rats never die of cancer.  Like literally never.  You can't even give a mole rat cancer, even if you try really really hard.  http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_mouse_trap/2011/11/naked_mole_rats_can_they_help_us_cure_cancer_.html

That's not in dispute.  No need to give proof of something we are not in disagreement with.

On the other hand,  13% of people who died in 2009 died of cancer.

Looking at this logically, this means that only 13% of people are prone to cancer and that 87% are immune.

I don't see how you can argue that we don't know that mole rats have better cancer protection than we do.  And the question is - if god designed mole rats to be cancer free, why wouldn't/couldn't he design people the same way?

Who is arguing that mole rats have better cancer protection than we do?  On what knowledge to you base the assertion that "god designed mole rats to be cancer-free?"  Who made this claim?  Once more I will ask, how do you know that this fictitional god DIDN'T design people to be cancer-free?

[hismikeness]

I don't know the best way to fix the eating/breathing hole problem... whales and dolphins figured it out! Or they were designed that way I guess, which begs the question why humans weren't if both were designed by the same god.

I'm not pretending to be a designer of species. I'm merely pointing out that the design is not optimal. Whether designed by a being or through natural selection, it isn't optimal. Breathing and eating through the same opening has, I'm sure, led to many a person's demise. As for whales, only George Costanza has ever killed a whale by plugging its blowhole.

I don't know how to build helicopters, but if I saw one with light posts instead of propellers, I would know it was a bad design. But I am not the creator of said helicopter. Nor did I claim to be.

[Ali]

On the other hand,  13% of people who died in 2009 died of cancer.

Looking at this logically, this means that only 13% of people are prone to cancer and that 87% are immune.

No.  That 13% is only the number of people who died in 2008.  I'm sure that there were countless more who had cancer and survived or who had cancer and died later.  Point being, "not dying" is not the same as "immune."

I don't see how you can argue that we don't know that mole rats have better cancer protection than we do.  And the question is - if god designed mole rats to be cancer free, why wouldn't/couldn't he design people the same way?

Who is arguing that mole rats have better cancer protection than we do?  On what knowledge to you base the assertion that "god designed mole rats to be cancer-free?"  Who made this claim?  Once more I will ask, how do you know that this fictitional god DIDN'T design people to be cancer-free?

Well, obviously I don't believe that god designed mole rats to be cancer free, since I don't believe in god.  But assuming that you do believe in god, and do believe that animals were designed by god, then one could surmise that god designed mole rats, and thus is responsible for their inability to get cancer.

And anyway, I thougvht the argument was "If our design is so imperfect, could you do better?"  And to answer that, yes, if I were designing things, I would give all animals the inability to get cancer.  Obviously it's possible, since, again, you can't even GIVE a mole rat cancer, no matter how much ick you smear on it.

[AnimatedDirt]

I don't know the best way to fix the eating/breathing hole problem... whales and dolphins figured it out! Or they were designed that way I guess, which begs the question why humans weren't if both were designed by the same god.

We humans do not make our home submerged IN water do we?  I guess the "design" would be different there.

I'm not pretending to be a designer of species. I'm merely pointing out that the design is not optimal.

If you're not a designer, what qualifications do you have to make the assertion that the existing design is not good?

Whether designed by a being or through natural selection, it isn't optimal. Breathing and eating through the same opening has, I'm sure, led to many a person's demise. As for whales, only George Costanza has ever killed a whale by plugging its blowhole.

Again...so what is optimal?  Not even a simple sketch?  I guess all you can do is make a funny at the end hoping it will detract from the point that you really made no point.

I don't know how to build helicopters, but if I saw one with light posts instead of propellers, I would know it was a bad design. But I am not the creator of said helicopter. Nor did I claim to be.

Another non-point.  There is no existing helicopter that utilizes lightpoles as blades to gain flight.  You can certainly make a funny pic of one, but it doesn't exist.   So to equate humans and helicopters with lightpoles as blades is not really adding to the discussion at all because these so-called "helicopters" do not exist.

[Tristan Jay]

I think Whitney's post was helpful in keeping this stuff in perspective.  If we're going on the assumption that some of the design is part of his lovely desire to test us in life, then sure, challenges with "faults" in the design of the world test us.  Maybe this goes deeper to a level of disagreement between God and the humans he created.  If we look at it in terms of the degree of suffering, maybe that's more what we're contending here.

The example of cancer is a great one, so I'll play with that a little.  I'll go out on a limb and say that cancer is needlessly cruel as a test of us, for starters.  So from my perspective, I would say, "I don't think you need to test us to such a level of pain and cruelty.  It would be more considerate and loving to test us, but not that far."  I would also say that God has no perspective on what is intolerable for humans, because he hasn't tested himself.  It might be easy for him to say, "Well, no, you don't have the perspective I have, cancer needs to be that cruel."  To which I would think, "Intolerable, spirit destroying levels of cruelty are acceptable to a God who wants us to consider a loving, caring God."  I would challenge Him that he doesn't have proper perspective on what this does to humans.

In order for me to conclude that God had a genuine perspective on how we humans feel about it, I would ask that he live through another human life time, without access to His knowledge and perspective, and experience the full indignity and horror of cancer, with only Himself and the family he set Himself up in to rely on; no superpowers, no knowledge that he has superpowers, and I would also ask that he pick a family that is moderate/average in its ability to provide help and support so He's not stacking the deck for himself.  Then I would ask Him (while still cut off from access to His powers and knowledge) to answer if he thought this level of cruelty was necessary for the purpose of a spiritual test.  That's probably the only way we might know if cancer is a reasonably painful test, from a loving God.

Despite His answer to my question within a specific set of living conditions, I would still say that he would need to answer to if the majority of humans weighed in and gave him a thumbs up or down on cancer.  I don't care that He considers himself the Head Honcho of the universe, He would be facing a direct evaluation from humans about the quality of the design, and an evaluation of his judgement as the designer that it's good.

I'm aware that God doesn't consider this whole setup a democracy.  And we're not really gonna know if enough humans will give a thumbs down for cancer as part of the design.

My personal opinion: I call foul.  Cancer+Humans=Bad.  I am willing to bet a fair amount of people would say, "Yeah, the universe might seem a bit better in it's design philosophy without cancer.  I mean, what do we need it for?  What do You need it for?"  

If we get into this as just the start, and think, "Why stop with cancer" we might get into very particular design aspects; taking stuff out, moderating other stuff so that it's less painful.  As a criterion for what an acceptable level of pain and suffering is, so we don't take all the challenge out of life, I'll suggest the "A person is not tested beyond what he is capable of handling" as a gauge, a cutoff point for pain and suffering levels.  Because I would question that contention as an operational criterion in the world as it is set up right now.

[AnimatedDirt]

No.  That 13% is only the number of people who died in 2008.  I'm sure that there were countless more who had cancer and survived or who had cancer and died later.  Point being, "not dying" is not the same as "immune."

If only 13% died of cancer, then that is the number.  Everyone dies...but not of cancer.

Well, obviously I don't believe that god designed mole rats to be cancer free, since I don't believe in god.

Yet you will argue that "god" designed humans, he made a mistake and put the cancer repelling gene in mole rats and not in humans?

But assuming that you do believe in god, and do believe that animals were designed by god, then one could surmise that god designed mole rats, and thus is responsible for their inability to get cancer.

Or...that both contain the ability to be cancer-free...but one is simply less likely than the other.  Again...not every person dies of cancer.

And anyway, I thougvht the argument was "If our design is so imperfect, could you do better?"  And to answer that, yes, if I were designing things, I would give all animals the inability to get cancer.  Obviously it's possible, since, again, you can't even GIVE a mole rat cancer, no matter how much ick you smear on it.

You believe if you were in this god's position that having the ability you would and this god didn't?  How do YOU KNOW this fictitional god didn't?

[Ali]

I think Whitney's post was helpful in keeping this stuff in perspective.  If we're going on the assumption that some of the design is part of his lovely desire to test us in life, then sure, challenges with "faults" in the design of the world test us.  Maybe this goes deeper to a level of disagreement between God and the humans he created.  If we look at it in terms of the degree of suffering, maybe that's more what we're contending here.

The example of cancer is a great one, so I'll play with that a little.  I'll go out on a limb and say that cancer is needlessly cruel as a test of us, for starters.  So from my perspective, I would say, "I don't think you need to test us to such a level of pain and cruelty.  It would be more considerate and loving to test us, but not that far."  I would also say that God has no perspective on what is intolerable for humans, because he hasn't tested himself.  It might be easy for him to say, "Well, no, you don't have the perspective I have, cancer needs to be that cruel."  To which I would think, "Intolerable, spirit destroying levels of cruelty are acceptable to a God who wants us to consider a loving, caring God."  I would challenge Him that he doesn't have proper perspective on what this does to humans.

In order for me to conclude that God had a genuine perspective on how we humans feel about it, I would ask that he live through another human life time, without access to His knowledge and perspective, and experience the full indignity and horror of cancer, with only Himself and the family he set Himself up in to rely on; no superpowers, no knowledge that he has superpowers, and I would also ask that he pick a family that is moderate/average in its ability to provide help and support so He's not stacking the deck for himself.  Then I would ask Him (while still cut off from access to His powers and knowledge) to answer if he thought this level of cruelty was necessary for the purpose of a spiritual test.  That's probably the only way we might know if cancer is a reasonably painful test, from a loving God.

Despite His answer to my question within a specific set of living conditions, I would still say that he would need to answer to if the majority of humans weighed in and gave him a thumbs up or down on cancer.  I don't care that He considers himself the Head Honcho of the universe, He would be facing a direct evaluation from humans about the quality of the design, and an evaluation of his judgement as the designer that it's good.

I'm aware that God doesn't consider this whole setup a democracy.  And we're not really gonna know if enough humans will give a thumbs down for cancer as part of the design.

My personal opinion: I call foul.  Cancer+Humans=Bad.  I am willing to bet a fair amount of people would say, "Yeah, the universe might seem a bit better in it's design philosophy without cancer.  I mean, what do we need it for?  What do You need it for?"  

If we get into this as just the start, and think, "Why stop with cancer" we might get into very particular design aspects; taking stuff out, moderating other stuff so that it's less painful.  As a criterion for what an acceptable level of pain and suffering is, so we don't take all the challenge out of life, I'll suggest the "A person is not tested beyond what he is capable of handling" as a gauge, a cutoff point for pain and suffering levels.  Because I would question that contention as an operational criterion in the world as it is set up right now.

I like what you've done here, but I would question the criteria of "not more than the person cis capable of handling."  What does this mean, exactly?  Because the truth is that most of us handle everythihg that is thrown at us until it literally kills us.  What I mean by "handle" is that we endure, we don't kill ourselves, we bear up.  That doesn't mean that it's not unreasnably cruel though.

[hismikeness]

I don't know the best way to fix the eating/breathing hole problem... whales and dolphins figured it out! Or they were designed that way I guess, which begs the question why humans weren't if both were designed by the same god.

We humans do not make our home submerged IN water do we?  I guess the "design" would be different there.

Very true. I guess enough of our species haven't choked to death to warrant a change in the design either.

I'm not pretending to be a designer of species. I'm merely pointing out that the design is not optimal.

If you're not a designer, what qualifications do you have to make the assertion that the existing design is not good?

I just observe.

Whether designed by a being or through natural selection, it isn't optimal. Breathing and eating through the same opening has, I'm sure, led to many a person's demise. As for whales, only George Costanza has ever killed a whale by plugging its blowhole.

Again...so what is optimal?

I'm not a designer, so... But, a separate hole for breathing and eating would be a start, regardless of if we live submerged in water or not.  

I don't know how to build helicopters, but if I saw one with light posts instead of propellers, I would know it was a bad design. But I am not the creator of said helicopter. Nor did I claim to be.

Another non-point.  There is no existing helicopter that utilizes lightpoles as blades to gain flight.  You can certainly make a funny pic of one, but it doesn't exist.   So to equate humans and helicopters with lightpoles as blades is not really adding to the discussion at all because these so-called "helicopters" do not exist.

What does a lightposted helicopter existing or not-exsting have to do with anything? Not to keep harping on my "non-point", but it really wasn't about the lightpoles and the helicopter. It was about recognizing a poor design (from an admitted and pointed-out "non-designer") without, perhaps, knowing a better way to optimize the design.

And I don't sketch.
But thanks for recognizing my funny. Hopefully this comment doesn't distract you from the drivel above.

[Ali]

No.  That 13% is only the number of people who died in 2008.  I'm sure that there were countless more who had cancer and survived or who had cancer and died later.  Point being, "not dying" is not the same as "immune."

If only 13% died of cancer, then that is the number.  Everyone dies...but not of cancer.

Not dying of cancer doesn't mean you're immune.  Lots of people survive cancer.  That number only speaks to the percentage of dead people who died of cancer.

Well, obviously I don't believe that god designed mole rats to be cancer free, since I don't believe in god.

Yet you will argue that "god" designed humans, he made a mistake and put the cancer repelling gene in mole rats and not in humans?

Well, I will argue for the sake of debate, sure.  If you are going to claim that god's design is perfect, then I have to first accept your premise that it was god's design before I can debate whether or not it was perfect.  If I start arguing from the premise of "there is no god" then there is nothing to argue about the design because there is no design.  So for the sake of debate, I will play along that god designed it.

But assuming that you do believe in god, and do believe that animals were designed by god, then one could surmise that god designed mole rats, and thus is responsible for their inability to get cancer.

Or...that both contain the ability to be cancer-free...but one is simply less likely than the other.  Again...not every person dies of cancer.

You've said this alot, and I still don't get what you mean.  It's obvious that mole rats are immune to cancer.  It's obvious that humans are not.  How can you argue that both have the ability to be cancer free, when humans get cancer all of the time?  

And anyway, I thougvht the argument was "If our design is so imperfect, could you do better?"  And to answer that, yes, if I were designing things, I would give all animals the inability to get cancer.  Obviously it's possible, since, again, you can't even GIVE a mole rat cancer, no matter how much ick you smear on it.

You believe if you were in this god's position that having the ability you would and this god didn't?  How do YOU KNOW this fictitional god didn't?

Well, again, for the sake of adebate, I am starting from the presmise that god desgned humans.  Not that I believe it, but because that's the only way to debate this topic coherently.  So, assuming that god desgned humans, how do I know that he didn't give them the gene that prevents cancer?  Because humans get cancer.