Why are conjoined twins a thing?

[Acim]

You seem to believe in things that have no evidence and not believe in things that do. Way to go.

How so? Care to back this up? Cause I'm one that knows science rests ultimately on faith with no objective evidence to back it up. But interesting that you are turning the tables on my logic, to conclude that I must have faith in something else, in addition to the faith I have in physical self/world.

Nope. Because as I said, blind mechanisms are, well, blind and amoral.

And I said your opinion is duly noted.

If I am hit by a lightning, I would be insane to accuse the lightning to be cruel.

Why insane? If you were struck by lightning, you would not think nature (outside of you) did something cruel to you? If no, I'd love to explore that.

But I suppose that God is neither amoral nor blind, isn't He?

Do you suppose (actually believe in) God to exist and have certain traits, or is this an actual question?
Is it plausible God is the mechanism at work? I hesitate to ask this question, but given that you introduced supposition into the discussion, then it seems you not only have opinions on the characteristics of evolution, but equally of God. I find that fascinating.

He could prevent all these things. So, at best, the attributes cruel and jokester are applicable to Him.

All fascinating beliefs about God. Interesting that you might also claim to deny "His" existence.

 

[rusra02]

Psalm 139:13
(NIV)
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb."

(NLV)
"You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body and knit me together in my mother's womb."

(ESV)
"For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb."

"Births of conjoined twins, whose skin and internal organs are fused together, are rare. Conjoined twins occur once every 200,000 live births, and their survival is anything but assured.

Approximately 40 to 60 percent of conjoined twins arrive stillborn, and about 35 percent survive only one day. The overall survival rate of conjoined twins is somewhere between 5 percent and 25 percent." - University of Maryland Medical Center

If God is all-powerful and all-loving, why would he create con-joined twins? A God who would allow conjoined twins is either lazy or a cruel jokester. The picture I chose for this example is very light. Most of the pictures are completely horrific.

The Bible's answer is that all of us fit the description at Psalm 51:5; "Look! I was born guilty of error, And my mother conceived me in sin." [Or “And sinful from the moment my mother conceived me.”] I believe we are all born sinful, imperfect, and dying from the effects of our first parent's wrongdoing. Romans 5:12 explains; "through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned." The true God has made provision to relieve us from sin and death. Meanwhile, the effects of Adam's sin has manifested itself in horrible deformities. I believe it pains Jehovah deeply to see this suffering, but displays his mercy in allowing imperfect people to live so he might grant worthy ones everlasting life. (Romans 6:23)

 

[Acim]

I know it is impossible.

You know what is impossible? I'm unclear on what you are referencing with this assertion.

For, no matter how much you pray, those girls will stll share the same brain.

Which is a wonderful thing, unless ya know, one feels unable to find peace with that.

God performs miracles only under the condition that they are not obvious miracles, for some reason.

I'm curious what you think a miracle is. Please, let me know how you understand the term. I think I can guess (correctly), but rather you explain it.

Probably, He does not want to mess around with our free will by making His existence obvious, although He did exactly that, in the past, allegedely. Still, for some reason.

God's existence is obvious/self evident. Understanding, interpreting and knowing it as God is (perhaps) another matter.

If looking for God outside of you, over yonder, as evidence for existence, I believe that will consistently show up as a fruitless search.

 

[Jainarayan]

Yes, if He does not micro manage, what does He do? If you do not believe He micro manages, then you must believe He macro manages. But what does He macro manage? By the way, I expect that He would not get a burn out by micro managing sometimes. That is one of the perks of being almighty.

Ciao

- viole

I think you have me confused with another poster. I never said what I believe or know what he does.

 

[viole]

How so? Care to back this up? Cause I'm one that knows science rests ultimately on faith with no objective evidence to back it up. But interesting that you are turning the tables on my logic, to conclude that I must have faith in something else, in addition to the faith I have in physical self/world.

Do you think we have no evidence of electromagnetism?

Why insane? If you were struck by lightning, you would not think nature (outside of you) did something cruel to you? If no, I'd love to explore that.

Nope. How can the huge difference of electrical potential on my head be cruel?

Do you suppose (actually believe in) God to exist and have certain traits, or is this an actual question?
Is it plausible God is the mechanism at work? I hesitate to ask this question, but given that you introduced supposition into the discussion, then it seems you not only have opinions on the characteristics of evolution, but equally of God. I find that fascinating.

God is a moral agent, I suppose. Evolution is not, by definition. I really do not undesrtand what you mean.

All fascinating beliefs about God. Interesting that you might also claim to deny "His" existence.

Yes, I like apophatic theology. The best way to describe God is by what He is not. I just include "existent" in what he is not.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I think you have me confused with another poster. I never said what I believe or know what he does.

So, you don't know if He does not micro manage, either. Right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jainarayan]

So, you don't know if He does not micro manages, either. Right?

Ciao

- viole

I don't know and I don't care. God doesn't report to me. And I still don't understand why you've chosen to interrogate me.

 

[viole]

You know what is impossible? I'm unclear on what you are referencing with this assertion.

Which is a wonderful thing, unless ya know, one feels unable to find peace with that.

Are you also sharing a brain with your twin brother?

I'm curious what you think a miracle is. Please, let me know how you understand the term. I think I can guess (correctly), but rather you explain it.

Separating those two girls without doctors would be a miracle. Finding peace would not.

God's existence is obvious/self evident.

Sure.

Understanding, interpreting and knowing it as God is (perhaps) another matter.

Perhaps.

If looking for God outside of you, over yonder, as evidence for existence, I believe that will consistently show up as a fruitless search.

Of course, since He does not exist.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Acim]

Do you think we have no evidence of electromagnetism?

How does this relate to the point you quoted from?

Nope. How can the huge difference of electrical potential on my head be cruel?

In the same way anything in the natural world (includes humans) might be considered cruel.

God is a moral agent, I suppose. Evolution is not, by definition. I really do not undesrtand what you mean.

There's that 'suppose' word again. You are saying God is (for you) a moral agent as determined by your assumption that God exists and based on the evidence or probability that what you've come to understand about God is accurate.

The (dictionary) definition of evolution doesn't preclude the process as being moral/ammoral. So inaccurate to say "it is not." For sure inaccurate to say by definition, it is not. IMO, people who base their livelihood on evolution are unconcerned with any moral implications that may, or may not be, inferred from the evolutionary process. IOW, for them it is inapplicable. That doesn't mean it is, or ought to be for all who look at the information. For us philosophy types are certainly not going to take that off the table if this is meant to explain 'how life develops.'

Yes, I like apophatic theology. The best way to describe God is by what He is not. I just include "existent" in what he is not.

Apophatic theology would make you a theist, no? For you are saying the best way, for you, to describe God is by what He is not.

 

[Acim]

Are you also sharing a brain with your twin brother?

Maybe. Honestly, I don't understand how your questions follow from the quoted point.

So, let the rhetorical games continue.

Separating those two girls without doctors would be a miracle. Finding peace would not.

How would separating those two girls be a miracle? Again, "I'm curious what you think a miracle is. Please, let me know how you understand the term."

Finding peace would be natural. Then again, miracles are natural, but will wait for your explanation before we venture too far into territory you are perhaps unfamiliar with.

Of course, since He does not exist.

...outside of you.

Funny how you have lots of understanding about God, based on apophatic theological assertions, and are certain He doesn't exist.

Though you also have similar understandings (knowledge obtained through negation) when it comes to evolution, so it kinda makes sense. I.E. evolution is not moral.

 

[idav]

I have, they don't explain why (to my satisfaction). They describe how and what. Usually in ways I find far fetched.

Must there be a why? To non-theists there may not be a why. It happens cause imperfection is in the nature of things which is how animals evolved, in round about ways, not for any particular reason unless the planet earth has some sort of plan we don't know about.

 

[viole]

Maybe. Honestly, I don't understand how your questions follow from the quoted point.

So, let the rhetorical games continue.

My pont is: if you are not in the situation, how does your preference to peace rather than living an autonomous life with your own head, even applies?

How would separating those two girls be a miracle? Again, "I'm curious what you think a miracle is. Please, let me know how you understand the term."

Finding peace would be natural. Then again, miracles are natural, but will wait for your explanation before we venture too far into territory you are perhaps unfamiliar with.

If I see the two twins separated without any surgical event, maybe after prayer, I would consider the miracle Hypothesis.
And no, my concept of miracle is something related to the supernatural. The classical view, I guess.

...outside of you.

Also inside of me. I am afraid.

Funny how you have lots of understanding about God, based on apophatic theological assertions, and are certain He doesn't exist.

I am not certain of basically anything. I claim knowledge, not certainties. When I say things like "(I know that) gravitation always attracts classical mass", I am not certain that it is the case. I did not inspect any corner of the Universe. Scientific knowledge, for instance, does not equal scientific certainty, the latter being fast oxymoronic.

So, in a nutshell, my confidence that God exists equals my confidence that Mother Goose exists. Both equally possible, and both equally plausible, given the evidence.

Though you also have similar understandings (knowledge obtained through negation) when it comes to evolution, so it kinda makes sense. I.E. evolution is not moral.

Of course not. That would be a category error. Like saying that my car likes strawberries.

Ciao

- viole

 

[BSM1]

Pollution is probably the main cause of such mutations.

So you think this explains Eng and Chang?

 

[viole]

How does this relate to the point you quoted from?

Well, I thought you said you do not believe in electromagnetism on account of failed evidence. But I might be wrong. Too lazy know to get back and check.

In the same way anything in the natural world (includes humans) might be considered cruel.

I like to believe that cruely requires moral agency. Lightnings do not possess moral agency. They are just the result of huge potential differences. So, maybe are the particles creating that difference that conspired to cause it, because they are the cruel ones. Or maybe are the temperature differences and humidy the real cruel ones. Or the mountains stopping and accumulating the clouds. Who can say?

There's that 'suppose' word again. You are saying God is (for you) a moral agent as determined by your assumption that God exists and based on the evidence or probability that what you've come to understand about God is accurate.

Point taken. If God is not a moral agent, then it is like the lightning. Not cruel. By why callng Him God, then?

The (dictionary) definition of evolution doesn't preclude the process as being moral/ammoral. So inaccurate to say "it is not." For sure inaccurate to say by definition, it is not. IMO, people who base their livelihood on evolution are unconcerned with any moral implications that may, or may not be, inferred from the evolutionary process. IOW, for them it is inapplicable. That doesn't mean it is, or ought to be for all who look at the information. For us philosophy types are certainly not going to take that off the table if this is meant to explain 'how life develops.'

People taking example from evolution to introduce things like eugenics make evolution immoral in the same way as people who drop atomic bombs make quarks guilty of genocyde.

Evolution is a blind and amoral mechanism. Like nature. Appeal to nature, or the naturalistic fallacy, ergo the idea that nature is right or moral (?!) and we should do what she does, is one of the greatest fallacies of all time. Nature does not care about anything. We could annihilate each other to extinction, and nobody would care. No weeping galaxies, no desperate black holes. No bored lightnings. Nothing.

Apophatic theology would make you a theist, no? For you are saying the best way, for you, to describe God is by what He is not.

A clear case of my frequent failed attempts to be humorous.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I don't know and I don't care. God doesn't report to me. And I still don't understand why you've chosen to interrogate me.

I am not interrogating, I am debating. And challenging your defense that God is too great to micro manage.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jainarayan]

And challenging your defense that God is too great to micro manage.

I never said that. Where did I say that?

 

[viole]

I never said that. Where did I say that?

Post #40.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jainarayan]

"That makes it all the worse, to blame God for everything, as if God is a puppetmaster and micro-manager. I refuse to believe any God does that."

That was a direct response to the idea that God tinkers with and controls every aspect of our lives. How do you derive "God is too great to micro manage" from that?"

 

[viole]

"That makes it all the worse, to blame God for everything, as if God is a puppetmaster and micro-manager. I refuse to believe any God does that."

That was a direct response to the idea that God tinkers with and controls every aspect of our lives. How do you derive "God is too great to micro manage" from that?"

There is a difference between controlling every aspect of our life and allowing two people to share a brain. For intance, a policeman does not care if you play football, but might intervene if you do that while carrying a shotgun.

So, back to the main question. Why does He allow that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jainarayan]

Why does He allow that?

You've been misreading what I wrote and putting words in my mouth. I don't believe he allows or prevents anything. The laws of karma take care of all that. If that's not clear, I can't help it.