Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What we must accept if we accept evolution Part 2
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 16 of 301 (282658)
01-30-2006 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by PaulK
01-30-2006 4:15 PM


A cruel God is still a God. If you wish to claim otherwise you are the one advocating logical contradiction. So - even if you could justify your point - it is irrelevant. If a God exists - cruel or not - than atheism is false.
This is fine. I would concede this myself. The list in the OP could maybe use some refining. I think the better statement may be that EITHER atheism OR an evil God follow from Evolution. Perhaps the logical conclusions from evolution as listed in the OP should be reworded as follows:
Materialism
Determinism
Atheism or an evil creator
Nihilism
Do you have an answer to that formulation of the statement?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 4:15 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 4:38 PM Faith has replied
 Message 24 by robinrohan, posted 01-30-2006 6:02 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 17 of 301 (282659)
01-30-2006 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
01-30-2006 1:31 PM


Atheism / evil god / Determinism
Try some simple points:
1) If evolution entails atheism then it must deny Deism. How is evolution inconsistent with the view that a Deity created the Universe and left it to develop on its own.
2) If evolution entails determinism then it must deny Quantum randomness. How does evolution do that ?
I think that this is sufficient to refute both points.
I personally would modify the list to say that either Atheism OR an Evil Creator logically follows from the ToE.
As for Determinism I haven't figured out what I think about this yet.
Materialism and Nihilism both seem to me to be logical conclusions from the ToE however.
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 04:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 1:31 PM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 18 of 301 (282660)
01-30-2006 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
01-30-2006 4:29 PM


Yes. I have already answered the determinism claim.
Further as I pointed out in the original thread evolution does not propose any cruelties that are not observed in the world. If these do not justify the inference of an evil creator, evolution does not make it any worse.i

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 4:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 5:02 PM PaulK has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 19 of 301 (282666)
01-30-2006 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by PaulK
01-30-2006 4:38 PM


Your point about the apparent cruelties is exactly what makes an evil God the only kind of God that could exist if the ToE is true. The YEC belief in the Fall explains the cruelties as the fault of human sin, sin against a good God, as Robin pointed out on the other thread, but the Fall is not compatible with the ToE because the Fall caused death, whereas in the ToE death is considered to be natural. The point remains that the ToE promotes either no God or an evil God.
(There was no mention of determinism in that post by the way. Maybe I was unclear that I was referring only to the statement about atheism)
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 05:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 4:38 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 5:15 PM Faith has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 20 of 301 (282668)
01-30-2006 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Faith
01-30-2006 5:02 PM


But then you are arguing that OEC proposes a "cruel God". In short it is not just evolution you have to reject but the fact that the fossil evidence shows a long history of death and predation, going back hundreds of millions of years before humanity existed.
Thus, even if YEC did have a good answer (which I certainly do not accept) evolution is not the real issue here.c

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 5:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 5:38 PM PaulK has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 21 of 301 (282671)
01-30-2006 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by PaulK
01-30-2006 5:15 PM


But then you are arguing that OEC proposes a "cruel God".
Yes, I believe that does turn out to be the case as I don't see how they can fit the Fall into their system. I have to assume they haven't worked through the logical consequences of their view.
In short it is not just evolution you have to reject but the fact that the fossil evidence shows a long history of death and predation, going back hundreds of millions of years before humanity existed.
Well, surely you know I have no problem with rejecting all that by now. But that's not the issue at hand.
The issue at hand IS that it logically follows from the ToE that either there is no God or God is evil because He created a world full of death and destruction, which you have just affirmed by your example of the fossil record -- which is regarded as major evidence for the ToE after all.
Thus, even if YEC did have a good answer (which I certainly do not accept) evolution is not the real issue here.
Well, but it is. Robin made a list of philosophical positions he believes must inevitably follow from the ToE. For the most part it holds up. I just showed you how atheism or an evil God holds up. This is a logical inference from the ToE.
Please concede the point instead of waffling further. Thank you.
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 05:42 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 5:15 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 6:01 PM Faith has replied
 Message 33 by Omnivorous, posted 01-30-2006 8:35 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 22 of 301 (282676)
01-30-2006 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Modulous
01-30-2006 1:28 PM


Re: Logic
O Modulous Mod, you're such a nice guy,
Twould be terrif could we see eye to eye;
But this logic of yours is a pain in the neck,
Dealt I suspect from outside the deck,
So how much I'd rather ignore its demands.
(Couldn't help rhyming, it sometimes just happens).
ANYWAY,
I can't make head or tail out of your presentation of the logic involved and I've given up trying. The bit about the supernatural only enters into one small area of the problem I think, about the incorporeal mind question, and I'm not sure where that belongs in the OP scheme. Do you? Maybe you can clarify or if I get an inspiration I'll try it again later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 01-30-2006 1:28 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Modulous, posted 01-31-2006 12:28 AM Faith has replied
 Message 94 by AdminWounded, posted 01-31-2006 8:17 AM Faith has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 23 of 301 (282680)
01-30-2006 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
01-30-2006 5:38 PM


No, you haven't shown that atheism or an evil God follow from evolution. As I have pointed out the conclusion of an evil God depend on other issues that apply even if evolution is rejected. Moreover you have not even considered other possibilities, such as the idea that a God so far above us as to be capable of creating this universe might be indifferent to what happens to life on this planet. Or that there might be some justiifcation for the apparent evil (unlikely in my view but unfortunately it is a valid objection if you are claiming a logical proof)..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 5:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 6:06 PM PaulK has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 301 (282681)
01-30-2006 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
01-30-2006 4:29 PM


I think the better statement may be that EITHER atheism OR an evil God follow from Evolution.
Oh, sure. I just dismissed that alternative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 4:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 6:08 PM robinrohan has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 25 of 301 (282682)
01-30-2006 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by PaulK
01-30-2006 6:01 PM


No, you haven't shown that atheism or an evil God follow from evolution.
Certainly have.
As I have pointed out the conclusion of an evil God depend on other issues that apply even if evolution is rejected.
That would be outside the boundaries of this discussion. We aren't talking about rejecting evolution. We are talking about what logically follows from accepting it.
Moreover you have not even considered other possibilities, such as the idea that a God so far above us as to be capable of creating this universe might be indifferent to what happens to life on this planet.
But that is not another possibility; it is included in the idea of an evil God. He doesn't care about all the suffering and bloodshed he created.
Or that there might be some justiifcation for the apparent evil (unlikely in my view but unfortunately it is a valid objection if you are claiming a logical proof)..
I see no problem here. Evil has been defined as creating living things that suffer and die. The point is logically consistent.
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 06:13 PM
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 09:04 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 6:01 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by PaulK, posted 01-31-2006 2:21 AM Faith has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 301 (282683)
01-30-2006 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by PaulK
01-30-2006 4:15 PM


The relationship between will and determinism has not been decisvely settled but I agree with the position that will is not incompatible with determinism (and I would go further and say that will must be deterministic).
What matters is determinism versus free will. In order to have free will, you need an incorporeal mind. If we evolved, we don't have one. Human life consists of automatic physical events.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-30-2006 05:07 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 4:15 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 6:17 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 30 by nwr, posted 01-30-2006 6:28 PM robinrohan has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 27 of 301 (282684)
01-30-2006 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by robinrohan
01-30-2006 6:02 PM


Oh, sure. I just dismissed that alternative.
I know, but they'll strangle you with your loose ends if you leave any dangling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by robinrohan, posted 01-30-2006 6:02 PM robinrohan has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 28 of 301 (282686)
01-30-2006 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by robinrohan
01-30-2006 6:07 PM


No, deteminism against free will need not matter. If they are not in contradiction as I believe then there can be no conflict. In short you can have no case unless you can settle a fairly major conflict in philosophy - and settle it in your favour.
Even if they are in conflict it still does not follow that free will requires an incorporeal mind. Moreover you have yet to produce a valid argument that evolution contradicts the idea of an incorporeal mind. If your argument that evolution logically entails determinism is dependant on your argment that evolution entails materialism then you need to establish that argument first. A

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by robinrohan, posted 01-30-2006 6:07 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by robinrohan, posted 01-30-2006 6:24 PM PaulK has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 301 (282688)
01-30-2006 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by PaulK
01-30-2006 6:17 PM


If your argument that evolution logically entails determinism is dependant on your argment that evolution entails materialism then you need to establish that argument first. A
I already did. Consciousness evolved. If it evolved, it had to evolve from the physical--that's all there was to evolve from. So consciousness is physical too. The physical can only produce more physical things. The incorporeal is not natural.
There has to be a non-physical self to do the willing to have free will. Otherwise the willing is not really willing. It's an automatic physical event.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 6:17 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by PaulK, posted 01-31-2006 2:39 AM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 93 by Modulous, posted 01-31-2006 7:16 AM robinrohan has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 30 of 301 (282689)
01-30-2006 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by robinrohan
01-30-2006 6:07 PM


Free will and ToE
What matters is determinism versus free will. In order to have free will, you need an incorporeal mind.
This makes no sense to me.
IMO we have free will. IMO, a physicalist account of cognition is possible, at least in principle.
Explain to me where I went wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by robinrohan, posted 01-30-2006 6:07 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by robinrohan, posted 01-30-2006 6:33 PM nwr has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024