I don't really have much to add Oliver, except to be fair to anyone answering number 3).

There is no evidence at all to indicate that insects feel pain. In this case, what would be considered cruel? Moral projection of values on the natural world is probably not a valid thing to do.

They are good questions Oliver. Here’s my atheistic perspective;

1. God to me is either the same ethereal entity as Mother Nature or is an abstract fantasial concept conjured up in the minds of human beings as their level of intelligence has evolved. It started with lots of gods, to account for all the things that the earliest humans couldn’t explain, and progressed to a single god to account for all of it, and on to the realization throughout much of the world that god doesn’t exist. In that sense, the atheistic perspective is the most advanced, but that doesn’t mean that atheists are more advanced or better human beings than god-fearers.

2. God didn’t allow the pre-Cambrian extinction event or any other extinction event or change in ecological parameters that led to a different set of species becoming dominant, because there is no god-force that controls such things.

3. It is not just the insect kingdom that is particularly cruel. All of nature is the same. As a botanist and ecologist, I have often wondered at the enormous wastefulness of life. Most plants have infant mortality rates of ~99.999999999%. For instance, after the first wet season rains, we see millions of seedlings germinating. But only a tiny portion of those will survive. Indeed, every individual plant produces somewhere between hundreds and many millions of seeds. But in order for a species to be promulgated in balance with its environment and all other organisms around it, only an average of one offspring from each individual needs to survive. There would indeed be problems with rapid expansion and pressure exerted on other organisms if a species reproduced at even a tiny bit over the replacement rate in an ongoing manner. And the extent of wastefulness is much much greater with pollen grains than it is with seeds. This apparent wastefulness is part of the natural order of things. It isn’t god-controlled…. and we shouldn’t be thinking of it as wastage, or cruelty.

I’ll have to pass on questions 4 and 5.

Cheers

1 God is manifest to each of us through faith. “Faith”, by definition, needs no concrete evidence of existence.

2 God does not care to intervene for the benefit of individuals or respond to specific events. He gave us free will to help us deal with all that stuff.

3 you can set someone or something free because you love it and if it comes back to you, then you are likewise loved. God did the same to us by endowing us with free will, which for some reason most theologians would seek to curtail, hence their fixation for sexual repression.

4 dunno, how?

5 that question is not about god but about the schemes and aspirations of men.

Important questions?
the first three are reasonable questions which everyone should seek to answer for themselves.
The last two are irrelevant to a persons faith.

one under god,” It is pathetic to have my posts on israel banned then have to read mindless stuff like proposed in this questioner.”

But life is rarely fair.

Dear Oliver,

An interesting thread - Thank You.

You've certainly set us quite a challenge - quite a lot to think about.

I've decided to answer your questions - one at a time.

You ask, "How do you explain the existence of God?"

By the following:

1)The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a Supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself.

2) Motion, i.e. the passing to act, as it takes place in the universe implies a first unmoved Mover (primum movens immobile), who is God; else we should postulate an infinite series of movers, which is inconceivable.

3) From the consent of mankind (usually described by Catholic writers as the moral argument).

4) From the internal witness of conscience to the supremacy of the moral law, and, therefore, to the existence of a supreme Lawgiver (this may be called the ethical argument).

5) From the existence and perception of beauty in the universe (an aesthetical argument).

There are many more explanations given on the following website:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm - 101k -

Realistically, man is not positioned to have all of the answers, apart from getting what is available from the Bible.
A small man looking up from a small world with existing knowledge (apart from the Bible version of Creation) isnt going to make an understanding of how it all is.
I often think about what lies beyond the black backdrop of the stars. Cant figure it.
Im not going to know that until after Ive left earth after death...and even then... I have to be on Gods good side for Him to reveal it all.

OK, Sincere question.

If we started from Adam and Eve, why is the incest that must have been necessary to reproduce from this state of affairs not a sin, and how come we're not all retarded or with genetic disorders?

Secondly, can anyone explain why the Spaghedeity is so often ignored in our lives, and why spagnostics don't get respect from the education system.

As Henderson says,

"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."

Ramen.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/