Believing it is not proving it

Maybe you can refresh my memory because I certainly don't recall that. I also don't ever recall you really answering, which is one reason I brought it up, as you seemed to disparage iano's and faith's perception of their dealings with you.But let's don't make a mess of it. If you don't want to get into it, fine.

I even gave you a link to the thread.Like I said, I'm old, may be forgetful, but that was what I recalled. And I may well be wrong.But randman, I have never tried to convince you of anything. Instead, what I do is outline the best arguments for my position. I assume that you try to do the same. The audience can then read the threads and make a decision about who best supported their position.But if you want to rehash ID yet again, start yet another thread since it was certainly not a subject of your current PNT.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm not sure why you believe popping into this thread with an issue from a different thread to begin haranguing Jar about it is appropriate, but it isn't. I have no opinion as to whether Jar is blameless or is the second coming of Goering concerning whatever it is you're talking about, but if you want to stay here then your behavior is extremely hard to understand for someone who just spent two weeks with suspended posting privileges.If comments in the admin forum are any guide, the tolerance level for you is very low. Unless you begin exhibiting pristine behavior you'll soon be suspended again. If you believe Jar has committed violations that have been missed by moderators then there's a forum to bring this up, but pursuing your own vigilante justice will just earn you another absence.California has a three strikes rule for criminals. We have nothing like that here, but on the other hand moderators do not approach each violation with amnesia. You already have a sorry history here. The more often someone is suspended, the easier it is for them to earn future suspensions because there's no uncertainty about whether the behavior is a pattern or not.Suspensions are a pain for moderators right now because they require remembering to unsuspend someone. This problem is about to go away very soon. I can't give a precise date for the release of dBoard 2.0, but I've finished all the database work and am working my way rather quickly through a long list of minor bugs. One feature of dBoard 2.0 is the auto-unsuspend feature. When they suspend someone, moderators will select a time period that ranges from 1 hour to indefinite, with a default of one day. At the end of the time period the member is automatically unsuspended. This will turn suspension into a "Suspend him, forget him" process.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

No, the argument did not change. It's exactly the same as it was originally. When I say that one cannot be a Christian and an evolutionist, I meant, of course, that the two positions are logically incompatible.Obviously, anybody can believe anything, no matter how irrational. Why on earth would I argue against that?Paulk and Modulus, even though they disagree with me, know what I was arguing, and they also know that Jar's saying that he and a 100 million Catholics believe in Christianity and evolution is totally irrelevant.

Let me address Modulus' point about my not accepting a God "of the greater good." In order for that argument to be plausible, the situation must be such that one cannot imagine God doing something in a different way than the way He did it, and achieving the same results.One might plausibly argue, for example, that giving man free will was for the greater good--and that nothing else would do.But one cannot say that in regard to evolution. The greater good of evolution, one assumes, would be the creation of many sorts of life forms. But God might have done it in a different way than the particularly painful way of evolution--namely, special creation. So that "God of the greater good" argument fails.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-02-2006 11:15 AM

Now let me address Asgara's remark that I am imagining an "anthropomorphic" God. I suppose she means that I am applying my morals to God and am expecting God to think as I do.If one is Christian, one must apply our morals to God. Otherwise, the concept of "sin" would make no sense. If we don't know right from wrong, we are incapable of sinning--just as an animal is incapable of sinning.So if one is a Christian (or Jew or Muslim), one must have an objective sense of right and wrong, and if one judges evolution morally, one must convict God of doing harm to innocents. Obviously, this won't do.

For what its worth, I was thinking of a different greater good. Not a greater good that we can observe but some grand greater good that extends beyond this mortal coil. Some greater good about the way paradise inherently functions. I couldn't give you details on that of course, but it isn't difficult to imagine that they exist. A random idea that struck me was the idea that suffering exists and that we suffer so that we know what suffering is. Why? Perhaps it makes an existence without suffering truly paradise.Basically, God can do something that appears cruel to us on earth, but in context of eternity is for the greater good.

Actually, I don't recall saying anything about an anthropomophic god, my remarks on anthropomophism were referring to your calling death or evolution "evil" and "cruel."Giving feeling type labels to nature just seems weird coming from someone who labels himself a nihilist.

My nihilism is based on absorbing the full implications of evolution.

---

"Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!"--T. S. Eliot

Yes, you are refuting a straw man, and so was jar. That is not the argument, and jar should have known it because he's been corrected on that misrepresentation I don't know how many times. The argument is not that nobody can believe in both -- it has been stated ad nauseum that that is not and was not ever the statement. Such a statement would be utterly ridiculous at EvC where many claim to believe in both.The contention is that evolution and Christianity are incompatible or mutually contradictory, and one way this was said was that "Christian evolutionism is an oxymoron."That CANNOT be refuted by claiming to believe in both.Your logic is as bad as jar's.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-02-2006 12:37 PM

There is the basis for the disagreement addressed in this thread.The assertion "one cannot be a Christian and an evolutionist" can be directly refuted by exhibiting an example of someone who is both a Christian and an evolutionist. That's where jar listed himself as that counter example.The assertion "the two positions are logically incompatible" does not require refutation. Rather, it requires logical proof. I'll note only that Robin has failed, after several threads on the topic, to provide such proof. The assertion seems obviously wrong, since the two positions don't seem to address anything in common that could make them logically incompatible.

This was never said on this thread, and if it was ever said elsewhere it was simply a casual way of saying that Christianity and evolution are incompatible. It ought to be obvious in the context of EvC with all you who claim to believe in both that that simply could not possibly have meant anything else. And it has been corrected ad nauseum.

Ridiculous. This God created a situation in which, in order to survive, life forms must torture, kill, and eat other life forms. There's your all-good God at work.

So your anthropomophism just disproved your concept of an "all-good" god. That is not an argument against a creator, just one particular concept of one.

There is no other concept of God that makes any sense.

---

"Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!"--T. S. Eliot