Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Loftus in the big chair

“David Hume argued that if he could come up with one improvement to God's purported creation that it would call into question God's goodness. He suggested four things, one of which is that God could've created us with a greater propensity to work (more energy). So let me open this up for discussion. If you were God, what would you reasonably do differently to make this a better world with less suffering?”

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/08/what-could-god-have-done-differently.html

On the face of it, a world without John Loftus would be a better world. But, thankfully for Loftus, I’m not God.

I’d add that my theodicy is sufficiently robust that it can even account for the apparently gratuitous evil of John Loftus.

“ Let me be the first to suggest an improvement. God could've created human beings by adding a pair of wings to our backs so that we could fly. There would be no more falling to our deaths. We would have better transportation such that there would also be fewer fatalities on our roadways and airways. Such a winged improvement would result in less suffering than our present bodies. We know God could've done this because there are naturally existing birds in this world who fly. So why didn't he?”

This is classic. You have unbelievers like Loftus who pay lip service to science, only to suggest the “improvement” of grafting a pair of wings onto a 200 lb. man.

A flying man would not be a man. Loftus is conveniently ignoring the physical constraints on flight.

How much can a bird weigh and still fly?

Do birds have hands with opposable thumbs?

What’s the tradeoff between blood flow, brain size, and flight?

What’s the tradeoff between respiration, brain size, and flight?

What’s the tradeoff between the metabolism of a bird and the metabolism of a man?

If a creationist were to propose a flying man, he’d be greeted with utter scorn from the secular scientific establishment.

50 comments:

  1. In his defense, Steve, it is not necessary that human beings weigh 200 lbs, or stand the height they do...

    There are many engineering trade-offs, admittedly, to flight, but I think John was volunteering one thing he considers an improvement, probably off-the-cuff.

    Now, more importantly -- is it necessary that you believe that God made men "perfectly" designed? I was just curious about that after having read the post John put up a few hours ago. I mean, certainly, it seems absurd to think that God couldn't make half-arsed creations if God so chose, but is there a logical necessity that whatever God makes is the best it could be?

    Obviously, pseudogenes, endogenous retroviruses and vestigial organs come to mind, concerning "perfect" design...

    Second, if I was in the "big chair", I suppose I'd create a world in which it was not necessary for starvation and viruses to exist. I can think of absolutely no reason that either must exist (esp endogenous retroviruses)...but I don't want to start a long thread here, just telling you two things I just thought of, sort of hastily, in pondering, "what would I do if I had all the power in the world...?"

    Just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve,

    Obviously I was speaking hypothetically, why do you always treat me like an idiot? Can't you just be nice and act like a Christian is supposed to? Don't you know that dinosaurs evolved into birds and they must have weighed at least 200 lbs, so my suggestion does have some merit. I'm tired of being treated like a non-person by you and your cronies. Now leave me alone or I'll fly over your house and "make a mess" on your car, if you know what I mean.....

    ReplyDelete
  3. How about if we lived in a world where God's commandments were obeyed perfectly? There would be no lying, stealing, greed, envy, murder, blasphemy, etc., and we'd have perfect communion with God. Oh wait, we already had that in the Garden of Eden. I guess if we hadn't sinned in Adam we wouldn't have suffering and viruses, etc. Hmmm....

    ReplyDelete
  4. A flying man is not an off the cuff suggestion. I mean it. And I have plenty of other suggestions. So tell me this Steve, and I really want an answer. Could God have created human beings so that they could fly? Yes or no? It might mean collapsible wings. It might mean heavier air. It might mean smaller bodies. It might entail a perpetual miracle that God just makes us fly when we flap our wings. The question is whether or not your omnipotent God could have created us this way and what the net effect would be on our happiness.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm sure he could have made us fly, perhaps we would be happier cuz then we could fly away from our atheistic and naturalistic problems...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Uh, is this question for real? I have to admit this is up there with your "Can God be surprised?" question. Of course He could have, but He chose not to. I always knew you really wanted to be Batman

    ReplyDelete
  7. Er, I guess I should say Superman, since Batman can't fly. Or maybe Buzz Lightyear...

    ReplyDelete
  8. So, John Loftus ignores an attempt to correct the apparent barminess of his suggestion.

    Sure, God MIGHT have created people that could fly. He MIGHT have given me the ability to look through walls or control the minds of other people. But he hasn't, and there's probably a good reason for that (I can think of several on my two examples).

    Still, it seems to me that this is rather pushing the envelope of sane discussion. I thought this was a joke, but apparently not.

    And, if I had all the power in the world... ha.... haha .... heehee... heeheehee... hahaha (cue manic laughter al la Bob Hope in 'Son of Paleface') ... power... ultimate power!... hahahahahahah

    Sorry, couldn't resist that one.

    ReplyDelete
  9. God could have chosen to make John Loftus fly, but then he'd be forced to wear skin-tight lycra, his undies outside his tights and go around helping people in need all the time.

    Not to mention the supervillains always trying to kill him. I think he'd find it pretty wearing after a bit.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Daniel,

    How does it feel to have to defend this guy? The emotional stress alone is monumental....

    ReplyDelete
  11. Listen,

    Flying isn't as easy as people think. There are a lot of trajectory issues, and many physics problems I have to deal with in milliseconds or I'd be a big splat on the sidewalk. AND I have to wear a cape everywhere, so it may seem like a good idea, and it does impress the girls, but it's more trouble than it's worth. I think your just trying to avoid airline fares (and food)...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Poor Steve...is there any treatment for his John Loftus OCD?

    ReplyDelete
  13. A flying man is not an off the cuff suggestion. I mean it, I've given this some really deep thought. In fact, I have some draft drawings and I'm going to meet this some top execs at Boeing. When I get my wings you'll be seeing me jump off that bridge in New River Gorge, WV and you'll be wishin' you were me pal! Yes, I'll be flying! I'll be flying! Whooo hoooo!

    ReplyDelete
  14. I thought angels had wings?

    How much do they weigh?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "john w. lost us"

    Teehee...giggle...chuckle...guffaw.

    So funny and witty...

    You should be on the next Fundy Def Jam!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Angels are spiritual beings there genius, so they don't weigh anything...

    ReplyDelete
  17. I wonder why god designed so many deadly viruses?

    He really did a pretty good job with HIV and Avian flu.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It appears "john w. loftus, anti-celsus, fundy comic relief"...

    ...has been weighing angels.

    I wonder how a being with wings can weigh nothing?

    What good are wings if you don't weigh anything and don't live where there is air?

    Who's the genius now?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anti-George,

    Are you implying that viruses were "poofed" out of thin air as the couple bit the apple that bought the world?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I wonder if when Steve looks in the mirror, he's pleased with god's creation?

    I'm guessing the women of the world have already voted on that one.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Nathan,

    John's a big boy, he can handle himself. I thought Steve was giving some silly examples (esp the opposable thumbs -- as though with wings we must become birdlike in every other way), although the point of engineering trade-offs is always a valid one (esp the question of how flight would affect our caloric demands -- although God could readily solve this problem by creating a world that isn't covered with so much desert and/or plants that produce more food for humans, etc etc etc)...

    ReplyDelete
  22. That comment that appears between the two I made is not me being anon, BTW. I would delete it if it was my own comment and place it in a less conspicuous place.

    Although I admittedly have made a comment before about Steve's power to woo and entice.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Daniel,

    Clearly god created killer viruses and bacterial infections and breast cancer and Down's Syndrome, for the "greater good".

    He's such a good "designer".

    Oh...and he's "perfect" and loving and everything he does is really "good". He even watches out for sparrows.

    It's his "nature".

    Sorry, you'd have to be a really smart theologian who has read a lot of Christian biographies to understand.

    ReplyDelete
  24. God should of just made a man out of mud, in his image, and placed him in a magical garden, where there was no death, no predators, lovely weather, and plenty of food...

    ...and no gullible women to nag him!

    Then he could just sit on his fat arse all day and make fun of John Loftus on his blog!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Daniel,

    I'm suggesting that the reason there is suffering, disease, etc. in the world is because of Adam and Eve's rebellion against God's commandment. This creation is cursed because sin came into it, that is the teaching of Scripture. Prior to that, the things you were lamenting didn't exist........

    ReplyDelete
  26. Celsus,

    Not you. I guess you can't understand symbolic language. It's too abstract for you, and abstract reasoning isn't your strong point. The Bible is speaking about beings that exist in a spiritual realm, and since we are in this world we cannot understand things about angels, heaven, etc. unless there is language used that we can attach meaning to. So, try again genius......

    ReplyDelete
  27. Poor Anon...is there any treatment for his Steve OCD.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Not you. I guess you can't understand symbolic language.

    You mean I can't understand your babbling nonsense about angels not "weighing" anything because they are "spiritual" beings?

    That's not "symbolic", that's fantasy. Sorry your mom skipped a few things when she home schooled you.


    The Bible is speaking about beings that exist in a spiritual realm, and since we are in this world we cannot understand things about angels, heaven, etc. unless there is language used that we can attach meaning to. So, try again genius......

    Perhaps you need to read the bible again Dork...it's filled with stories about angels and gods coming to earth and appearing.

    Who's the genius again?

    Who's the little ignorant fundy following me around like a snarling, rabid dog.

    If only god had done a better job of "designing" you, perhaps you would have a clue.

    ReplyDelete
  29. What's the matter Celsus? Don't like being challenged because you like being the bully? That homeschool stuff is hilarious, that just cracks me up. Actually their are theophanies in the Bible, and angels do appear in the world, but they are appearances. I guess you can't distinguish between the appearance of a spriritual being and the presence of a physical one, but I guess they didn't teach you that in your public high school physics class. Try again, genius...

    ReplyDelete
  30. "God should of just made a man out of mud, in his image, and placed him in a magical garden, where there was no death, no predators, lovely weather, and plenty of food...

    ...and no gullible women to nag him!

    Then he could just sit on his fat arse all day and make fun of John Loftus on his blog!"




    The problem with your argument is that you're assuming that in a perfect world their'd be a John Loftus to make fun of. You see, if the world was perfect then imperfect arguments, like John's, wouldn't exist.

    boo-yah!

    ReplyDelete
  31. anti-george,

    Prior to that, the things you were lamenting didn't exist........

    So you are saying that viruses didn't exist pre-Fall...

    So God created them post-Fall? God was affected by the Fall and got pissed and made a batch of HIV and such?

    Or did 'Da Debbil make em?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Oh, wait a minute. On second thought, they don't talk about spiritual things in physics class. I guess you're just a product of your social conditioning. Now I understand your ignorance...

    ReplyDelete
  33. Daniel,

    I'm not saying that, the Bible is. If you're trying to find out if I think God made viruses, yes He did and He continues to make new ones as judgment against sin (HIV for example). All that came post-fall. You know this already, don't you? I know you don't believe it, but you know it. Why are you asking me?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Daniel, while I'm no scientist and this is pure speculation, may I suggest that viriuses may have existed prior to the fall but had no ill-effects. Like Mistletoe, they would have been symbiotic organisms that lived in other organisms. On the Fall, these viruses then became malign, sort of like the flu virus, which normally leaves a perfectly healthy person a little under the weather, mutating into a killer virius and slaying millions in 1918.

    Of course, I may be wrong. After all, I'm no scientist. Just my two cents as a layman.

    Anonymous (one of you, anyhow), a chap doesn't need a degree to read a well-written biography. But I do suggest you address that chip on your shoulder. It must be weighing you down.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Steve, yes or no? And just because I suggest something that sounds strange means nothing at all. Birds can fly. Angels purportedly have wings. Why not humans? There would be a whole lot less suffering with just this one change, but I have dozens of changes that I'll suggest in an upcoming debate on evil...dozens. Any one of which would greatly reduce suffering in our world.

    You see, when you claim to believe in an omnipotent God and then ridicule the idea that he could have made us with wings, then you betray your own beliefs. You either believe God is omnipotent or not. If he is and if we can find things in the natural world that he has done, then he could've done it for us. And had he done that for us we would experience less suffering. So the question for you is why he did not do it. And rather than offer an answer to my question people here would prefer to ridicule my question, not fully aware of the fact that what they are ridiculing is their own conception of an omnipotent God. Ya see, they ridicule it because they cannot conceive of a bigger God than the one who purportedly created this universe. They are stuck defending the God whom they believe created this world and will obstinately refuse to consider that such a God could have easily done differently because of a faith that is blind. For them God is only as omnipotent as this world reveals, even though I can suggest very reasonable changes that an omnipotent God, if omnipotent, could easily do differently. So go ahead, in ridiculing my suggestion you ridicule what you believe your own God could do.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Respectfully, John, the problem is that you picked a silly-sounding modification. Everyone either thought Superman or that X-Man with wings, or the Hawk-Men from Flash Gordon (I apologise for the apparent encycolopedic knowledge of men with wings). The trouble is I think a lot of people thought you were joking.

    Yes, Angels have wings. They are also spirits, not matter (the wings are, I assume, as much for show as actual flying, like the tail of a Peacock). We are material, and thus subject to different laws.

    In the final analysis I'll do what a historian always does at this point and say that the hypothetical event did not happen.

    Could God have created a flying man? Yes. Did God create a flying man? No.

    Why? God knows, and that is enough for me. I trust Him. Of course, as you don't, this answer will not satisfy you.

    As for safety, at Creation, man was perfectly safe. He didn't need to be able to fly and in the dense vegetation of the Garden any wings might well have got in the way. Afterwards, of course, man could not have developed tools, etc. due to having wings and not arms.

    Now, the net effect on a person's happiness from something that has not happened cannot be measured. How much happier would I be if I'd gone to Oxford, not Aberystwyth? if my parents hadn't divorced when I was ten? If I'd got my dream job? I can't possibly know. In fact, although I may think any or all of these alternatives would have made me happier, I may well be wrong on all counts. Certainly I know one would not have made me seek God's face more fervently.

    Again, if I treated your comments with undue levity earlier, may I take this occasion to sincerely apologise. It was unChristian of me, and I should have no excuse for doing it. The fact that I thought you were joking merely indicates that I am an insensitive swine.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Wow, that's a winner...

    John, God could have done anything He wanted to. Of course He could have made us with wings, but He didn't. We could sit around and think of things we would have liked Him to do, but He's God and we're not. What the big deal with this flying thing? We generally like to deal with reality, so unless you've been watching too many movies I can't understand where you're coming from. You continue to show that you really didn't understand Christianity, or know God at all, when you professed to be a Christian. Your speculations are getting more weird than usual. Our ridicule of your question has nothing to do with our belief in God's omnipotence. Besides, if we could fly we would just bring our problems and sins up in the air with us. We would be escaping anything, except maybe stupid questions posted on the internet....

    ReplyDelete
  38. I plan to respond to the comments of Danny and Loftus. But, for the moment, I prefer to let the combox run its course.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Harvey Birdman finds Loftus' suggestion to be offensive.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Uh, the above should have stated "wouldn't be escaping anything, etc..". Sorry.......

    ReplyDelete
  41. And that suggestion the Discomfiter mentioned earlier about having gills is a pretty good idea too. Why didn't God give us the ability to breathe under water? That would relieve a lot of suffering too. For example, I could hide from my wife every time she starts nagging me about mowing the lawn by staying at the bottom of the swimming pool for a few hours. Sigh, the things I have to bare for being a man and not a bird or a fish...

    ReplyDelete
  42. Daniel Morgan said, "I mean, certainly, it seems absurd to think that God couldn't make half-arsed creations if God so chose, but is there a logical necessity that whatever God makes is the best it could be?"

    Such theological/philosophical speculation may impress Darwinists and convince them that their theory must be true despite the rest of the evidence [and if anyone doesn't believe me, just read Gould's The Pandas Thumb], but it doesn't impress those Christians who don't hold to 19th century, Victorian era, Anglican theology.

    "For creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope." (Romans 8:20)

    I could also bring up the passage in Job which says that God purposefully created the ostrich "stupid", but the point is that the answer to your question is 'no'. God's plans for His creation are His own.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Might I respectfully suggest that, had God made half-arsed creations they might have had a little trouble when it came to sitting down.

    Sorry, I couldn't resist that one. Still, it's nice to see an American who doesn't confuse his sitting equipment with a donkey.

    ReplyDelete
  44. What time zone does the counter use?

    Really, I want to know. I'm currently working on a novel in which one of the protagonists makes a transatlantic 'phone call, and would like to know what the person who picks up the 'phone would be doing.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I believe that Blogger is on Pacific Standard Time.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Why didn't evolution give us wings? Just a chance mutation that didn't happen with us, I suppose?

    There are few ideas quite as puerile as suggesting what God could have done to improve the design of humans. In the first place, the addition of wings would simply make us non-human—you might as well ask why God didn't make men as He did angels, or why He didn't make fish like men, or why He didn't make rocks living creatures.

    In the second, you have the engineering difficulties mentioned above. (No, omnipotence does not entail the ability to actualize the nonsensical.)

    In the third, the Christian worldview accounts for suffering in the Fall of Adam and Eve. Death and suffering didn't exist prior to mankind's willful rebellion against God; and death and suffering is no more than the just punishment for rebellion against God. Adam and Eve lived in perfect peace and joy, with no need unmet, prior to their rebellion.

    To seriously suggest a "better design" for human beings is little more than carrying on the rebellion of Adam and Eve ("you will be like God," so the Serpent told them—better than God had made them!), and assuming complicity in the very same.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Yay! The 'phone call in my novel is from California to England. That means I can use blogger for details!

    ReplyDelete
  48. Kyle,

    Why didn't evolution give us wings? Just a chance mutation that didn't happen with us, I suppose?

    Your understanding of evolutionary biology is typical of creationists. I'm not being mean, I'm being honest. Go look up Orthogenesis, Lamarckism and the work of Lysenko to help you understand the failed notion of evolutionary "goals".

    Random mutations selected by nature. A stochastic production of traits which are filtered for benefit and survival value. No "goals" and no "upward" evolution. Keep that in mind the next time you criticize evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Your understanding of evolutionary biology is typical of creationists. I'm not being mean, I'm being honest. Go look up Orthogenesis, Lamarckism and the work of Lysenko to help you understand the failed notion of evolutionary "goals".

    I wasn't proposing orthogenesis. I don't have any idea of evolution with "goals." It would be nonsense, given the framework within which evolution is proposed. Chance doesn't have a teleology!

    However, if John is suggesting that human survival would benefit with the addition of wings, it can certainly be asked why humans never developed this survival advantage; of course the only answer is that this particular chance mutation didn't occur in our ancestors—or, if it did, it didn't confer any survival advantage at the time and so wasn't passed on.

    Random mutations selected by nature.

    I always find it fascinating how naturalists speak of nature, and even evolution, as though these were intelligent things.

    Keep that in mind the next time you criticize evolution.

    My criticism was aimed more at John's argument than it was at evolutionary theory. But were I arguing specifically against evolutionary theory, I wouldn't attack it on teleological grounds.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I don't know about wings as an improvement (albeit an obviously tongue-in-cheek one), but here's my shot at the Big Chair:

    I wouldn't have created anything at all.

    See how much better than your god I'd be? No death, no suffering, no fall, no sin, nothing but me, and since I'd be god in this hypothetical, I'd have no need of anyone else.

    Perfect creation == no creation.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete