How can a good God allow suffering

It started in Europe around 1675. Has it ever ended? I don't know.

While I appreciate the Scientific advances that were made, I reget the lack of acknowledgement of God. I believe that this is a mistake.

So, people like Paine took the essence out of Judaism and Christianity----that God is a personal God. This is a shame because God wants to have a personal relationship with each and every person.

Quote:

While I appreciate the Scientific advances that were made, I reget the lack of acknowledgement of God. I believe that this is a mistake.

It not a mistake, it is a choice. I think it was Dawkins who said it was Darwin who gave atheism an intellectual foundation that they were so desperately looking for. Most atheists don’t really understand Darwin, let alone the counter arguments to it. They are comfortable in the ‘scientific consensus' that they were told about. Why rock the boat so late in life? Why alienate all your friends, family, cyber acquaintances...

It’s a choice whether to question 'science' and risk everything, or not.

To be fair, the 'religious' often fall into the same trap on the other side of the road.

I do not know the precise method by which the design was implemented but it was probably not hand waving. That it was designed however, is not in question.

Leadfoot wrote:
I do not know the precise method by which the design was implemented but it was probably not hand waving. That it was designed however, is not in question.

Bill replied:
Of course it not a question thanks to Darwin the others scientists that came afterward . Not magic at any kind needed.

However, the social sciences suffer from the lack of recognition of God

Well, the logical-manipulation of that is the assumption that you have to reject evolution to believe in God/creation.

Quote:

Leadfoot wrote:
I do not know the precise method by which the design was implemented but it was probably not hand waving. That it was designed however, is not in question.

Bill replied:
Of course it not a question thanks to Darwin the others scientists that came afterward . Not magic at any kind needed.

As I have said before, most Darwin believers do not have a good grasp on what the theory explains and what it doesn’t.
His theory Says NOTHING about the origin of life.

And I never mentioned any magic involved. It took quite an intelligence to design DNA based organisms, not magic. Magic is not evidence of intelligence but design is.

That IS my point. Neither magic or chance or the laws of physics or Darwin explain the existence of life.

Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8] While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8] While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.[12]

The study of abiogenesis aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life under conditions strikingly different from those on Earth today.[13] It primarily uses tools from biology, chemistry, and geophysics,[14] with more recent approaches attempting a synthesis of all three:[15] more specifically, astrobiology, biochemistry, biophysics, geochemistry, molecular biology, oceanography and paleontology. Life functions through the specialized chemistry of carbon and water and builds largely upon four key families of chemicals: lipids (fatty cell walls), carbohydrates (sugars, cellulose), amino acids (protein metabolism), and nucleic acids (self-replicating DNA and RNA). Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions of these classes of molecules.[16] Many approaches to abiogenesis investigate how self-replicating molecules, or their components, came into existence. Researchers generally think that current life descends from an RNA world,[17] although other self-replicating molecules may have preceded RNA.[18][19]

The classic 1952 Miller–Urey experiment and similar research demonstrated that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early Earth. Scientists have proposed various external sources of energy that may have triggered these reactions, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism-first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems on the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.[20]the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.[12]