DetlefK
(16,423 posts)For example: The appendix on the colon. Certain herbivores need it for digesting plants. But in the human it just sits around unused. We only realize we have an appendix if it gets an inflammation.
Is the appendix a flaw?
We cannot know: If God created the human, and God has free will and a plan, then the appendix might be part of God's plan.
This is the basic problem with discovering God by his actions: No one knows what he meant by those actions.
For example: A hunter killing deer. Is he a bad person or is he preserving the deer-population by preventing over-population?
Trying to discover God by his works or by experiments or the like is a futile endavour from the very beginning: A human cannot learn more about God by using things like evidence or facts. It's philosophically impossible, because God has a free will (-> does not obey fixed rules) and is unique (-> you cannot use statistics to deduce some general behaviour of God).
God can neither be proven nor disproven by using things such as experiments, evidence, witnesses... Because God and the scientific method are based on incompatible philosophic assumptions.
Now, having discarded proving God by science, it's important to be aware of a dangerous double-speak when it comes to "faith":
"Faith" and "belief" have two radically different meanings, but some religious people jump between them as they please.
1. "Faith" and "belief" can mean guessing.
2. "Faith" and "belief" can mean the very specific cultural and religious doctrine of the person using that word. The doctrine itself. Not "faith"/"belief" as a mental state.
When a religious person scolds you for not believing, in 99.9% of the cases they are scolding you for not having the exactly same opinion as him. But they cover up this extremism by claiming to use the innocent 1st definition.