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

[AnimatedDirt]

I just observe.

Your observation is of no value.  Once again it's much like "observing" that rocks make better building materials because termites don't chew wood yet we continue to make homes from wood.  Why?  And what was the point of your observation if it does not come with a better solution using rocks?

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.

Why?  And how?  And who is complaining of the manner in which we eat and breathe?  No sketch?  Ok...then just say where the breathing hole might be found to be "better" and we can pursue that as we go.  

What does a lightposted helicopter existing or not-exsting have to do with anything?

What?  It's simple.  *You are complaining about our mouths, breathing, eating...whatever your point is.  The point is that IT IS FUNCTIONAL AND AESTHETICALLY PLEASING.  What is your point in bringing up something that neither exists nor is functional and as for aesthetically pleasing...much like the "Was it a Titleist" ending...simply a funny.

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.

Again...the "poor" design is being used functionally all over the world by every single human...and most animals.

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

What distracts is the non-existence of a "better" design.

[Tristan Jay]

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.

My initial impulse to refine this concept is the quote, "What does not kill you makes you stronger."  It's useful as a starting point, and what helps is that it's not accurate.  If suffering does have the effect of toughening up a person, making them stronger in spirit, mind and body, then perhaps that might be considered an acceptable level of pain and suffering to endure.  Not everyone gets stronger from their suffer, so that pain I would reject as "more than the person could handle."

And speaking from a very personal perspective, I would say that some suicides count against God.  Too much suffering, beyond what the person can handle.  I can only speak for myself, but I'm pretty sure that some people who have committed suicide felt what I felt, just at a more unbearable level.  Given what I've felt, I have to give them the benefit of the doubt; their despair was so great, they could not handle it.  I consider that an indictment against God's design as good, or "good enough".

[AnimatedDirt]

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.

Certainly.  But the "fact" is 87% didn't die of cancer.

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.

I've not argued that the existing "design" of the human is perfect.  I would say, however, that the original design WAS/is 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.

Fine.  I'm not going to surprise the, "Ahhhh-HAAA!" on you to argue from this premise. 

You've said this alot, and I still don't get what you mean.  It's obvious that mole rats are immune to cancer.

The ones tested.  And they don't live as long as humans, although they do live quite a long time for rodents.

It's obvious that humans are not.

They're not?  Not that I do think so, but the numbers given say that cancer only killed 13%.

How can you argue that both have the ability to be cancer free, when humans get cancer all of the time?

I don't think that's quite my argument.  I haven't made an argument yet of that sort, I don't think.  What I have argued is how do YOU know this ficticious god DIDN'T make humans "immune" to cancer?  And further how do YOU know we don't have the correct genes to be cancer-free?  

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.

Wait...only 13% do.  So how do YOU KNOW the rest don't?  In other words, you're making a statement of fact without KNOWING empirically that humans don't have the genes necessary to be cancer-free.

[Tristan Jay]

Arguing small points of percentage and splitting of hairs doesn't advance this discourse.  The fact of the matter is that we can imagine the world without cancer.  And we can imagine that a being with infinite powers can take it away.  And we're examine the possibility that this is evidence that God could have done better, could have designed and implemented things better.  That should be enough for us to understand, to move forward beyond small points that are just going to make our heads spin, and distract us.

Just saying.   

[AnimatedDirt]

Arguing small points of percentage and splitting of hairs doesn't advance this discourse.

Splitting hairs...that's funny.

The fact of the matter is that we can imagine the world without cancer.  And we can imagine that a being with infinite powers can take it away.

We agree.

And we're examine the possibility that this is evidence that God could have done better, could have designed and implemented things better.

On what empirical knowledge do you base this claim?  Are you some sort of god that CAN do better?  How do you know?  Are you privy to all the variables?

That should be enough for us to understand, to move forward beyond small points that are just going to make our heads spin, and distract us.

Just saying.   

So the points are small when the one making "small claims" cannot prove these...so better move on?  Oh I wish the Christian was afforded these same thoughts on his beliefs...funny how this works here.

[Ali]

Yeah.  I don't seem to be making myself clear on several points, and I don't know what else I can do to make myself more clear (other than typing in all caps) so I think I'll just agree with Tristan Jay (love your name by the way, my son's name is Tristan) and go watch Chopped.  

[AnimatedDirt]

Yeah.  I don't seem to be making myself clear on several points, and I don't know what else I can do to make myself more clear (other than typing in all caps) so I think I'll just agree with Tristan Jay (love your name by the way, my son's name is Tristan) and go watch Chopped.  

Yes.  What is not clear is how you know this god didn't make humans immune to cancer and so "blame" him.  It's quite simple.

[Stevil]

Yeah.  I don't seem to be making myself clear on several points, and I don't know what else I can do to make myself more clear (other than typing in all caps) so I think I'll just agree with Tristan Jay (love your name by the way, my son's name is Tristan) and go watch Chopped.  

Yes.  What is not clear is how you know this god didn't make humans immune to cancer and so "blame" him.  It's quite simple.

Yes Ali, humans are quite clearly immune from cancer, please explain yourself! 

[Ali]

Yeah.  I don't seem to be making myself clear on several points, and I don't know what else I can do to make myself more clear (other than typing in all caps) so I think I'll just agree with Tristan Jay (love your name by the way, my son's name is Tristan) and go watch Chopped.  

Yes.  What is not clear is how you know this god didn't make humans immune to cancer and so "blame" him.  It's quite simple.

OK MISTER.  ALL CAPS TIME.

Just kidding.  I know that god didn't make humans immune to cancer because humans get cancer.  It really is that simple.  I get that not all humans get cancer, but if even 1% do, I would call that empirical proof that humans as a species are not immune to cancer.  Since you don't seem to be willing to accept this as proof that humans are not immune to cancer, I don't know what else to say.  EXCEPT AAAAAHHHHH ALL CAPS AAAAAAAAAAH  

[Genericguy]

What distracts is the non-existence of a "better" design.

As Ali has stated, in order to even have this discussion, we need to assume we were created by a god. The vast majority of theists believe in a afterlife, free of pain, suffering, and ... cancer (if you played by the rules that is). A better design lies within religion itself. You could argue that we are not "human" when we go to the afterlife, but that would still make for a better design. If we are spirits when we go there, then I suggest that a spirit design would be better than a physical one that is susceptible to cancer. You might ask me to sketch out some blueprints of the mechanical working of a spirit, but I'd suggest the same for a god in the first place.

[AnimatedDirt]

OK MISTER.  ALL CAPS TIME.

Just kidding.  I know that god didn't make humans immune to cancer because humans get cancer.  It really is that simple.  I get that not all humans get cancer, but if even 1% do, I would call that empirical proof that humans as a species are not immune to cancer.  Since you don't seem to be willing to accept this as proof that humans are not immune to cancer, I don't know what else to say.  EXCEPT AAAAAHHHHH ALL CAPS AAAAAAAAAAH  

I appreciate you trying with me, Ali.  It simply does not add up.  If only 13% have died of cancer (or even 1%) that does not presume empirically that ALL humans are susceptible to cancer and die of it.  I can't imagine having to repeat myself again and at the danger of angering you, but what empirical proof do you have that humans are not immune to cancer?

Question:

What are the known causes of cancer?  One is smoking.  Does EVERY person that smokes die of a cancer?  Does every person that partakes of known causes of cancer die of cancer?

If you know humans do not have the genes necessary to ward off cancer as the mole rat does, how is it you know this?  Are you a geneticist and have seen the genes from the mole rat and that of every human being - whose genetical make up seems to be different in at least more than 50% of humans when it comes to the specific disease of cancer as all humans do not die of cancer?

I find it so difficult to claim, "The design is flawed" when the ones making that claim have no clue of the design nor can this "flawed" design even be reporduced apart from THE design.  In other words, one must be able to recreate the design to even say, "ok, this is flawed... because this can go here, this is better there...all these cables shouldn't be routed though the spine...and here's how it is better...There...a perfect design."

[AnimatedDirt]

As Ali has stated, in order to even have this discussion, we need to assume we were created by a god. The vast majority of theists believe in a afterlife, free of pain, suffering, and ... cancer (if you played by the rules that is).

This goes to show how much you don't know about Christianity.

A better design lies within religion itself. You could argue that we are not "human" when we go to the afterlife, but that would still make for a better design. If we are spirits when we go there, then I suggest that a spirit design would be better than a physical one that is susceptible to cancer. You might ask me to sketch out some blueprints of the mechanical working of a spirit, but I'd suggest the same for a god in the first place.

More evidence of the above - that you may have minimal understanding when speaking of this aspect of Christianity.  Logic says if it was perfect at the beginning, it will likely be returned to that perfection in the end.

[Ali]

OK MISTER.  ALL CAPS TIME.

Just kidding.  I know that god didn't make humans immune to cancer because humans get cancer.  It really is that simple.  I get that not all humans get cancer, but if even 1% do, I would call that empirical proof that humans as a species are not immune to cancer.  Since you don't seem to be willing to accept this as proof that humans are not immune to cancer, I don't know what else to say.  EXCEPT AAAAAHHHHH ALL CAPS AAAAAAAAAAH  

I appreciate you trying with me, Ali.  It simply does not add up.  If only 13% have died of cancer (or even 1%) that does not presume empirically that ALL humans are susceptible to cancer and die of it.  I can't imagine having to repeat myself again and at the danger of angering you, but what empirical proof do you have that humans are not immune to cancer?

Are you asking me how I know any individual human being may not be immune to cancer?  If that's what you mean, then you're right, there is no way of knowing (with our current technology) if any one human being will or will not get cancer.  Certainly, we know that different people have different propensities and resistances to all sorts of maladies.  I appear to be fairly resistant to poison ivy, as I have been repeatedly exposed to it and never gotten it.  But you would hardly argue that humans as a SPECIES are immune to poison ivy, just because I don't seen to get it, and the same goes for cancer.  Individuals may be more or less likely to get cancer, but as a species, humans certainly are not immune. As evidenced by the fact that some humans get cancer.  See, no anger. 

[AnimatedDirt]

Are you asking me how I know any individual human being may not be immune to cancer?  If that's what you mean, then you're right, there is no way of knowing (with our current technology) if any one human being will or will not get cancer.  Certainly, we know that different people have different propensities and resistances to all sorts of maladies.  I appear to be fairly resistant to poison ivy, as I have been repeatedly exposed to it and never gotten it.  But you would hardly argue that humans as a SPECIES are immune to poison ivy, just because I don't seen to get it, and the same goes for cancer.  Individuals may be more or less likely to get cancer, but as a species, humans certainly are not immune. As evidenced by the fact that some humans get cancer.  See, no anger.  

I can accept that for sure.  The species of humans is not immune to cancer as 13% have died of cancer.

Now how is that proof that the design is flawed?  Do you have proof that those 13% are the norm?  Do you know empirically that those 13% had the "perfect" genome as designed?  Arguing from the premise that god exists, of course which clearly you don't believe.

[Ali]

Are you asking me how I know any individual human being may not be immune to cancer?  If that's what you mean, then you're right, there is no way of knowing (with our current technology) if any one human being will or will not get cancer.  Certainly, we know that different people have different propensities and resistances to all sorts of maladies.  I appear to be fairly resistant to poison ivy, as I have been repeatedly exposed to it and never gotten it.  But you would hardly argue that humans as a SPECIES are immune to poison ivy, just because I don't seen to get it, and the same goes for cancer.  Individuals may be more or less likely to get cancer, but as a species, humans certainly are not immune. As evidenced by the fact that some humans get cancer.  See, no anger. 

I can accept that for sure.  The species of humans is not immune to cancer as 13% have died of cancer.

Now how is that proof that the design is flawed?  Do you have proof that those 13% are the norm?  Do you know empirically that those 13% had the "perfect" genome as designed?  Arguing from the premise that god exists, of course.

Well, there are a couple of different arguments here.

1.  How is that proof that the design is flawed - Well, that's a harder question to answer, because as someone else pointed out, it depends on the "point" of the design.  If the point of the design is something other than a long and healthy life for the animal in question (in this case, humans) then it's not proof of anything.  But if we are going by the qualification of simply removing obstacles for health from a species, then it seems obvious that no cancer is better than cancer.
2.  Those 13% aren't "the norm", but I will say that humans in general seem very susceptible to cancer, and again, if the point of the design is a long and healthy life, cancer is incompatible with that design.  Per the American Cancer Society, the lifetime risk of developing cancer for males is 44.85% and 38.08% for females (in the US) so not the majority of people, but also not an unheard of risk.
3.  I don't know how to argue if those people who get cancer have the perfect genome as designed - do you think that god designed imperfect people?