What was God’s plan behind Creation and why does he need one?

J.U.C., hooah212002, DrJones and all.I'm new here and think this is great - "Understanding through Discussion" - exactly what we need more of IMO.Thanks for the question, posts and replies!~3DSOC

Hi 3DSOC! Welcome to EvC: your diversity will be added to the collective. Yes he is. What act of will by a human causes a baby to be born with phenylketonuria?What about people being killed in storms and tsunamis? You point that it is all down to people making bad choices will eventually lead you back to Adam and if you have read this thread you will see that his has already been dealt with. So Yahweh sits and watches one of his children's free will removed by their parent without lifting a finger?Good old, loving Yahweh.But it's all part of the plan; people can only learn through the heavenly gift of suffering. Even when Yahweh was trying to do humanity a good turn he could only do it using suffering.Does he have no other mechanism to exert his will other than suffering?

Not really. There is no decision making, just life or death. Why? is strength/speed/size always superior to better vision? Increase in these factors would most likely require an increase in amount of foood that organism A needs to eat per day, potentially limiting it's numbers compared to organism B. Better vision could allow organism B to operate nocturnally when there is less threat or competition from organism A. There are many factors to consider before proclaiming one organism is objectivly "better" than another.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Hey 3DSOC. This is called an argument from incredulity. It's also a striking example of what we call a "strawman" and you'd be better served to argue based on facts and reality instead of flimsy hypothetical situations.In a hypothetical time in your imaginary evolution of what you are assuming early forms may have taken, an assumed blind brute (it follows from your argument that only Species B enjoys the ability to see, yes?) *poof!* evolves from an earlier form at the same time as a hypothetical *poof!* primitive-eye weakling-pansy organism. Am I setting up your strawman with the correct amount of lean, height, etc. here?In your scenario, this blind-brute fish-like organism (you're surely not assuming the hypothetical blind-brute and primitive-eye weakling-pansy were hominids, correct?) maintains a selective brutish advantage over a more frail squid-like occupant of the same area, even though (stop me if I'm running amok with this) the weakling-pansy would most likely have the ability to see the blind-brute coming, and turn tail. Now, say a mobile food source is prolific in this area, and that food source's mobility allowed it to outmaneuver the (previously all blind) ancestors of our current organisms. Well, now the primitive-eye weakling-pansy comes along *poof!* with her proto-eyes and absolutely GORGES, soon becoming many primitive-eye pansies, which all run from the blind brutes, which starve and are therefore "selected out".My point here, 3DSOC, is that anyone can come up with an infinite number of unlikely scenarios under all sorts of strawman assumptions, which in one's mind could be seen as refuting natural selection and evolution in some way. As you can see, with just a little thought I provided a scenario (also using some of these self-same types of assumptions) which nicely invalidates your hypothetical situation. Trouble is, because I used all the same silly assumptions, another may assume differently and my silly story is invalidated as well. e.g. "For the sake of argument, now let's assume the blind-brute had IR or echo-location..." And so on, and so on, and so on ad infinitum.You can have your opinions; hell, be as incredulous as you want. These, however, affect the TOE (and reality) not at all.Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

I'm going to put s different spin on this and hope give you some sort of concept of the power the sun holds over life on planet earth. I watched a documentary called Home some time ago. It detailed the symbiotic nature of life and how we all affect one another. You should check it out. (I am at work and cannot link to it.)One of the most interesting aspects shown in this is how vegetation fights gravity to get to the suns energy, which it feeds off of. I can only imagine that animals (of all sorts) will go to any lengths to attain this source of energy as well, to include eyesight.this is all off topic, of course, and does nothing to further the discussion for why some god might have created us.

---

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl SaganFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

Hi 3DSOC Humans don't have the ability to manufacture ready made new humans. We have to teach our children certain things. Why couldn't God, if God is an all-powerful perfect being, have created humans with a complete understanding of everything?And you haven't explained why he created us in the first place.

Yes, it would! But you're on the right track. There is no ultimate purpose to evolution and reproduction. That's my position. Religionists always say that there must be a purpose - that God has a purpose. I'm just asking what that purpose is.

Whether vision is superior to strength, speed and/or size isn't the point. According to evolution, it would have taken hundreds of generations for a species to develop sight while their competitors are using the same time to get bigger/stronger/faster.So I'm not comparing species that have sight with species that are bigger/stronger/faster, I'm comparing a species that is attempting to develop vision with other species that are developing into bigger/stronger/faster creatures.Wouldn't a bigger/stronger/faster species be favored over a species that is developing sight - but doesn't have sight?Edited by 3DSOC, : No reason given.

I hope this isn't to overly simplistic of an answer but there is a saying that goes something like "It isn't the destination, its the journey."Life is a journey. Life is a series of experiences. Sure, God could have created man with knowledge of everything, but I believe He wanted us to experience life for ourselves.As to "why did God create us in the first place?", I don't have an answer for you.

does the bigger/stronger/faster species already have sight? if so, then I think it would probably do better than a smalller/weaker and sightless species. But its not an absolute.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Hi Apothecus!I'm still relatively new to this board and apologize if I've made a 'newbie' mistake. I was under the impression that this particular forum was more opinion based, how could anybody but God answer the question that launched this thread?Allow me to clarify my original post and forgive me if this is still a 'strawman' arguement.Species A & B are two fish-like organisms (I was actually thinking more like single celled organisms)Neither A or B has sight.In 100 generations, species A will have sight.In 100 generation, species B will be twice as strong.At generation 50, species A will not have sight while species B in 50% stronger.If species A and B are vying for the same food/shelter/territory, wouldn't 'natural selection' favor species B at generation 50?

LOL - love the Borg reference!!Completely WAY off topic (sorry) - What did you think of the new StarTrek?~3DSOC

Hey Dr. J.Exactly the point I was trying to make. You can change the rules of this hypothetical exercise however you want in order to make the outcome conform to your own worldview. Of course a weak organism would be selected out in lieu of a stronger specimen, all other things equal (including sight/blindness). The thing is, 3DSOC's example assumed that things were not equal. It seems likely to me that an organism with even rudimentary sight would enjoy a selective advantage over any sightless organism.3DSOC presents an unfair scenario, IMO.Have a good one.

Hi 3DSOC.Indeed, in this scenario I can accept the outcome you propose. And you are correct that this particular forum employs a bit more leeway with regard to evidence, etc. Didn't mean to jump all over you there. However, I still think you're pigeonholing things. Like I said in my last post (while you were posting your latest reply), any number of variables can be introduced to change the proposed outcome. As such, the argument becomes a thought experiment in which any result is possible, if you just tweak the conditions.Your hypothetical scenario is quite possible, when you set it up as you do. The thing is, my (or anyone else's) hypothetical scenario is just as plausible. That doesn't mean they're not hypothetical.Have a good one.

Hi 3DSOC You are employing the GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) principle here. You have just plucked random figures out of the air and assume you can make them sing and dance for you (sorry science doesn't work that way!).For example why will it take 100 generations to be twice as strong? Have you followed the gene sequences relating to muscular protein accumulation? Can you say it will take 100 generations? Have you followed optical evolution? Any fool can pluck numbers out of the air like that.In reality the environment shapes the progress of random mutations, and the environment is also subject to change. It is simply not possible to come up with silly numbers like this and expect a sensible outcome."If Jane and John sit beside this freeway leading out of LA and count the cars (John counts red ones, Jane counts blue ones) won't John count twice as many as Jane cos I heard red is a cool colour in LA?See what happens if you employ GIGO?Welcome to EVC by the way.