Illness/disability the result of 'sin'?

[Dunemeister]

It is more likely than the tale in Genesis, imo!

My statement stands. But I wonder what you have to say about my previous observation:

I only meant that a few people have responded, explaining that the view you are rightly outraged about is a small minority view. Indeed, it's not necessary to hold the view to be an orthodox or even evangelical Christian. More than that, the view you describe represents either ignorance of or mishandling of the Christian tradition. I just wondered what you thought about those responses.

 

[Pegg]

I don't. However if you think an intelligent designer created it, you still have to explain who created the intelligent designer.

that question stands to reason in a physical world, i'll agree. But we know nothing of the physics of the spiritual world where God exists so its not as simple as asking the question because he is not in our form.

The way I 'try' to understand such a question is to think of God in terms of energy. We know energy exists because all matter is made from it. Now, the fact is that scientists know energy exists but they have no idea how it exists...they know how it works but they dont know what makes it function, nor do they know where it starts or where it ends....it just is. Much like gravity, we know so little about it and yet its what keeps the universe together.

I guess what i'm trying to say is that there is still so much about the 'non physical world' that we simply dont understand and therefore its not reasonable to expect that the question 'who made God' is going to be simple....just as its not simple to say where energy comes from and how it exists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why so?

Typically, the rationale for why an intelligent designer is necessary in the first place apply equally to the designer.

If you're not saying that the intelligent designer is necessary, then a designer for the designer likely isn't either, however, why assume an unnecessary designer in the first place?

Sure there is. We are trying to explain the existence of a series of contingent beings. (A contingent being is one -- alive or inert -- that depends upon another being for its existence.) No contingent being can explain the whole chain. Therefore the contingent beings must all find their source in a noncontingent being.

Either that, or the chain doesn't work the way we think it does.

This doesn't get us to the Christian god, of course (philosophy never does), but it does get us to a being that is itself uncreated. This argument is as old at least as Plato and has never been really refuted (although I won't say there are no problems with it; there are, as there are with any philosophical argument/claim).

The argument is valid only as far as it says that, given the apparent rules of the universe we observe, it's impossible for a causal chain to be infinite, while at the same time, those rules require that causal events have causes themselves.

It doesn't get us to an uncontingent being, because by those same apparent rules, an uncontingent being is impossible as well.

This leads us to one of two conclusions:

- the apparent rules we observe don't work quite the way we think they do.
- the rules do work the way we think we do, but only within certain limits (e.g. after the Big Bang).

You must accept one or the other to allow for an uncontingent being, but when you accept either one, you undermine the original premises, and suddenly you can no longer say with certainty that all causal events must have causes, or that an infinite causal chain can't exist.

Why would not needing maintenance make the car better?

It was previously stated that a car that degrades, i.e. one that requires maintenance, would become less than perfect. However, the criteria for what makes something perfect are a bit of a side issue here.

The main point is that if a thing begins in a perfect form and then degrades, it is not as perfect as a thing that begins in a perfect form and remains in perfect form forever.