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

[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.

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?

I will have to post my reply to this on the morrow...

[Stevil]

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.

13% failure rate is extremely high, especially considering that people's lives are at stake.
It seems clear this is either a design, build or usability issue.

If it is a usability issue then I would attribute that to poor design via not taking appropriate care during the requirements gathering phase.
If the builder is not following the design, then I would like to know
1. Who is the builder?
2. Why is the builder not following the design?

[Genericguy]

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.

So in heaven people feel pain?

Revelation 21:4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away."

[Ihateyoumike]

This has been pretty entertaining for such a pointless discussion. Sorry dirt, but for me personally, it's useless for me to jump into this because I don't believe in your god. I have no opinion on what he/she could have done better cause I don't have any good reason to believe it exists and created us in the first place.

I am, however, very glad to know that because I've never had cancer and died from it that I am immune and will never get it. I think I might go jump out of a plane without a parachute now because not everyone who ever had a parachute malfunction died from it so I'm immune!
I didn't get the avian or swine flu, so I must be immune to that too. Next time there's an epidemic... I'm heading towards the sickies to prove my immunity.
I was told I'm deathly allergic to penicillin, but that's a crock-o-shit because everyone in my family has used it before and they are ALL alive and kicking. Next time I get an infection... I'm using it cause not only am I clearly immune, but that shit will help too.
Hmmm... Since I'm immune to everything, I wonder why I'll still die? Probably cause I don't believe in this god joker and won't get granted the eternal life. Oh well.

[xSilverPhinx]

I'm just wondering how variability factors into perfection. Does perfection allow for any variability? 

[Stevil]

I'm just wondering how variability factors into perfection. Does perfection allow for any variability? 

Let me just state that my left pointer finger is slightly longer than my right pointer finger.
So there we have it, perfection does allow for variability 

[xSilverPhinx]

I'm just wondering how variability factors into perfection. Does perfection allow for any variability?  

Let me just state that my left pointer finger is slightly longer than my right pointer finger.
So there we have it, perfection does allow for variability  

I hope you're not suggesting that we make a 'Stevil' a unit of perfection? If so, then is 1 Stevil just as perfect as all 100 Stevils with variations among them?

[Asmodean]

I hope you're not suggesting that we make a 'Stevil' a unit of perfection? If so, then is 1 Stevil just as perfect as all 100 Stevils with variations among them?

Well, evil is measured in Asmos. Guys like Hitler are about 500 to 700 µAsmos in terms of evil. A regular garden variety secretary is a few nanoAsmos. YHWH is at whopping 1/2Asmos and The Asmo is... An Asmo. 

[The Magic Pudding]

I hope you're not suggesting that we make a 'Stevil' a unit of perfection? If so, then is 1 Stevil just as perfect as all 100 Stevils with variations among them?

Well, evil is measured in Asmos. Guys like Hitler are about 500 to 700 µAsmos in terms of evil. A regular garden variety secretary is a few nanoAsmos. YHWH is at whopping 1/2Asmos and The Asmo is... An Asmo. 

Can you explain the Asmofear, the unit of measurement of Lackey subservience at sea level?
Is there much variance in a subterranean ubliet as compared to a high altitude volcanic lair?

[Tristan Jay]

I noticed that I haven't had another theist respond to what I posted...so maybe there is no response, because my words and ideas are Nuclear Fire, Baby!  Yeah!   

No, it's no good, I can't take myself seriously like this.  How does the other guy manage it with such conviction?   ???

All kidding aside, I would be interested in a different type of theist's assessment of my argument for evidence of imperfect design.

[Asmodean]

Can you explain the Asmofear, the unit of measurement of Lackey subservience at sea level?
Is there much variance in a subterranean ubliet as compared to a high altitude volcanic lair?

Yes. there is some variance, with the buried Lackeys being somewhat less subservient, as defined in the mathematical formula due to the Servitude Force being reversely proportional to gravity.

To determine subservience, you can define Asmofear as a function of the lackey l.

Af(l)=(a^h + 3a^2 *h(int)Adl)/(sqrt(-1)-L)

where a is the relative Asmodeanic mass of the lackey, h is the altitude, measured from the center of the Universe. The value being integrated with regard to l, is the Lackey's Asmos count function. Big L is the Lackey's life expectancy.

[The Magic Pudding]

Af(l)=(a^h + 3a^2 *h(int)Adl)/(sqrt(-1)-L)

Well thanks for clearing that up.

[Stevil]

I'm just wondering how variability factors into perfection. Does perfection allow for any variability?  

Let me just state that my left pointer finger is slightly longer than my right pointer finger.
So there we have it, perfection does allow for variability  

I hope you're not suggesting that we make a 'Stevil' a unit of perfection? If so, then is 1 Stevil just as perfect as all 100 Stevils with variations among them?

You would think that 2 Stevils is twice as good as 1, but that would imply that 1 Stevil is less than perfect.
But that's the thing. 1 Stevil is as good as it gets, you can't improve on that, you can't improve on perfection.
If I were a god (I'm not though, because gods are flawed) and I was on my own in Space, just sitting there not existing but at the same time not (not existing), I wouldn't have the need to create existence. Why bother, I'm already perfect, I have no needs. But then what is the point to it all, if noone is around to see how perfect I am, to admire me in my glory?

This reminds me of a song
There is no doubt about it
I'm one of kind, baby
I am le d'Artagnan de coeur
As you may see, candy

And I'm talking with my eyes
And I walk in different styles
I'm the genuine man!

Yes I am
I am a perfect gentleman
Yes I am
I am a perfect gentleman

Kneel down, inhale my odor
Come, kiss my hand, angel
Dare to explore my higher grounds
Strive to deserve me, ma cherie
And my winds surpass perfume

I'm charismatic at fool bloom,
I'm the genuine man

Yes I am
I am a perfect gentleman
Yes I am
I am a perfect gentleman
Yes I am, I am, yes I am
(perfect)

Oh, Lord, what can I do?
I can't resist my own reflection
How would possibly anyone?

Cause I am (perfect)
Yes I am (perfect)
Oh, Lord, I am (perfect)
Yes I am
I am a perfect gentleman
Yes I am
I am a perfect gentleman

[AnimatedDirt]

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.

And from the premise, do you know what that point is?

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.

I guess the answer is a 'no'.

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.

There is a risk.  I don't argue that.  What I do ask, which goes back a bit, is how is it you know that the design does not have within it, the means to be immune to cancer.  How do you know we do not carry the genetics necessary for this?  The answer can't be because humans die of cancer because "only" 13% do from the statistics we know.  This means that it could be that some are "immune" or something makes them less likely.  I've mentioned smoking is a known cause of cancer, yet everyone who smokes does not die of cancer.

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?

The better question is, under our premise,: Is today's human an exact example of that perfect being or is today's human a flawed example of what once was perfect?  If so, why or why not?  ...under the premise.

[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.

So in heaven people feel pain?

Revelation 21:4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away."

You are completely off and simply have no understanding.  You are correct though, there will be no more pain in the ficticious heaven according to the piece of fiction.