That is a good question, and I cannot imagine that there is a reasonable answer to it.It is a question that I also asked myself when I was still a believer, and that no one could answer.
The question can be added:
Why did God create the world in such a way that, from a scientific point of view, it looks exactly as if it had not been created, but was created?
Believers always stand out on the “design”.One compares the design of a watch maker that needs a watchmaker with the design of the universe, which then supposedly also requires a “universe maker”.
This comparison is grossly misleading, in two respects:
- The design of a watch was not created by a designer.
Rather, every watch designer takes an existing design and changes that.You could draw a pedigree of watches, from the first coarse sundials to modern smartwatches – we find tinychanges, some of which lead to watches that are extinct because no one buys them anymore.Pocket watches are almost extinct, but were once the dominant watch type, etc. Usf. In short, we have an evolution of clocks, small-step changes, some of which have prevailed, but most of them haven’t.
It all arose from smaller things that gradually came together, changed, due to natural laws, not by chance. This also applies to life, we do not know how the universe or how life came about, because we lack details about it. Life, after it was there, developed in an evolution, in small steps. The history of evolution is written with blood and suffering, it is cruel, merciless. Our history has also been written with blood and suffering. Why is this necessary? If a god can create a universe with a magical act, why can’t he create everything else with the same magic?
Some fundamentalists answer the last question by simply denying the evolution, the history of development, the universe.I can’t do that, given the sheer amount of facts. To get to God, one must ignore the entire evolutionary history of the clocks, then deny the entire evolutionary history of the universe, and then draw a completely brain-crackingly false conclusion in an analogy that resembles both. Yes, both are similar – both if you look at the end result and, if you look at the history of development, the evolution of things. But if you only look at the end result, it’s like solving a riddle that consists of thousands of information, but you ignore all, pick up the last two information you’ve received, just draw a conclusion from it. and then thinks that the riddle has been solved. Who would bet against it that the riddle was solved incorrectly?
The conclusion of the design of a watch, or whatever you take, because what I said also applies to cars, computers, houses, to everything that people have ever done, to a watchmaker is obvious, because we know what watches are.But we don’t know what the universe is. We don’t know if it was created in a similar way to a clock. But we see history – and it is completely ignored by the faithful. And from this ignorance a “completely obvious conclusion” is drawn, which is above all one thing: completely wrong. With this concentrated ignorance, in which thousands of information is ignored, it seems quite obvious to come to a God – and that is so wrong that I do not trust a person who draws such a false conclusion that he, for example, from his own own Experiences that supposedly show him a god, but now for once draws the right conclusion.
What believers prove with this analogy is not God, but that they are able to draw false conclusions out of ignorance.It’s easy to do that, everyone can. But if atheists sometimes think believers are stupid – then, given what I have described, it is hard to hold back with his consent.
The believers are not stupid, but they have been brought up with false conclusions, and they are rattly them after them without ever really thinking about it.They accept false conclusions, and that casts a skewed light on their religion. Anyone who is so massively mistaken should not be surprised if one also doubts his other conclusions.
Anyone who thinks, for example, can interpret the Bible correctly, only in order to show that he draws such absurd misconceptions, should not be surprised if one also sees his interpretation as the result of misconceptions.For he has proved that when it comes to religion, he is not in a position to come to a reasonable conclusion. This may be different in other areas, but those who make a stupid mistake do not have to be completely stupid. But he looks stupid here at least – and that’s not an insult, that’s the fact. Intelligent people can also have stupid ideas, but it is a mistake to conclude from a stupid idea that human beings as a whole are stupid, through and through.
It is almost impossible to politely, non-insultingly tell someone that they are wrong and have a false idea on which they are also building their lives.Especially because he has also been trained in the inability to distinguish between an idea and his identity as a person, so that he feels personally attacked when one attacks his idea – a lack of distinction between the level of fact and person. As a result, this leads to a disturbed communication: while I talk about the matter, the believer thinks that I am attacking his person as a whole. And it is very, very difficult to avoid this false impression, especially when one sees the mistakes to which believers are “capable”.
The question I always ask in this context is:
Is God powerful enough to create a world with less suffering than this?
Never before has a creditor seriously tried to give an answer.Most believers, by the way, because they are so wise to notice that they are riding their way into a mess from which they cannot get out. They avoid this question, ignore it, just as they ignore the entire evolutionary history of clocks and the universe.
By the way, there are also believers who can see and understand my reasoning about the clock and the universe.Not everyone becomes an atheist about it.
When you see an object, say a chair, you can insinuate the design to the ability of the designer.No one would think of a “perfect designer” in the event of a bad execution, as little as one can insinuate from the universe to a perfect designer. However, one cannot draw any conclusions about a designer from the universe at all, on the contrary.
And yes, I know all the excuses that believers bring.I don’t know any of them that are even half-plausible. The argument of free will is popular, for example, but even if one accepts all premises unquestioningly, the free will of man has nothing to do with the suffering of animals, or with natural circumstances. This cannot be explained in this way, and again, who thinks he can do it proves again only his tendency to misconceptions in religious matters. I mean, anyone who concludes from the disobedience of some people towards God that there has been a “case of nature” retroactively in time – the cause of which came long, long after the natural circumstances – should not be surprised if I do not take it seriously. Can. To demand that, even to demand respect for misconceptions, far exceeds my abilities. I can also respect people, but not such false ideas!
Tl;dr.I know. Sorry. Here is the summary:
God is the sum of all the logical faults to which human beings are “capable”.