What we must accept if we accept evolution Part 2

There's no point, jar. It's been dealt with on this thread already, and reformulated: some versions of God of which I've been collecting in Message 1. I suppose your version would just be another one of those, so if you want to add it to the collection, that's up to you. Or if you'd like to argue that my new formulation is wrong, that's OK too. But we've settled it that atheism is definitely a logical inference from the ToE, and any God (an evil one, a weak or uninvolved one, lesser gods etc) -- any God but an omnipotent, omniscient good God of Love, the Biblical God, also appears to be compatible.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-31-2006 10:57 PM

It's been proved jar. A good God is not compatible with the ToE because it treats death and suffering as natural. A good God would not have made a universe full of pain, and the Biblical God didn't, So the God of the Bible is not compatible with the ToE. That's no mere assertion, that's supportive reasoning. It's been proved. There's nothing more to say.Others have pointed out that a God who can't run his own universe is also compatible with the ToE, as are lesser godlets etc. OK, those are also not the God of the Bible.Sorry, it's been thoroughly proved.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 09:36 PM

What a bunch of hot air, jar. You have proved nothing. YOUR belief is supposed to be proof? I will restrain my hilarity.You don't believe in the God of the Bible. You believe in a God that is not based on the Bible but on rejecting half the Bible and picking out only what you like about it. That is not the Biblical God.However, go ahead and define this God you call the Biblical God and it will be seen that it is not the Biblical God of traditional Christianity, Who IS incompatible with the ToE.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 09:40 PM

I did not assert, I clearly supported it with reasoning, and not only that, I pointed out that your supposed "refutation," which is merely that you believe in what you consider to be the Biblical God and also in the ToE , to be as far from a reasoned argument as one can get. And unbelievably arrogant too, as if what YOU believe determines all truth.You are out of order to keep repeating your false accusation, jar, and I request INDEPENDENT OBJECTIVE moderator attention to this.I think this all occurred within a few recent posts but if necessary I will track down the relevant ones.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 10:20 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 10:27 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 10:27 PM

To catch you up with some of the arguments to this point:The ToE is incompatible with the idea of an omnipotent omniscient good God because the ToE takes for granted as natural the pain and suffering of all life forms. The Biblical God did not create life to suffer pain and death. Suffering, pain and death are not natural. They entered with the Fall, when humanity rebelled against their creator God. Therefore the Biblical God is not compatible with the ToE. Actually it was Robin Rohan who made this case based on what has been said about these things at EvC and he doesn't believe in any God.However, either atheism or a lesser God, a weak God or an evil God, ARE logical inferences from the ToE. But the Biblical God is not.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 10:25 PM

What people believe is proof of absolutely nothing, as you yourself would say if a YEC dared to make such a case.Ben, Buzsaw, nwr, Asgara. You're all online now. JAR is out of order. He's simply bullying, using very bad reasoning. Big old power play, no substance.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 10:32 PM

But this is not the subject of this thread. I would certainly argue with your characterization of the Biblical God. I'm defending the God of Christian tradition and my God is definitely NOT compatible with the ToE. I'm not sure what point you are making with respect to the thread's topic. Perhaps even your hated God of the Bible is also incompatible with the ToE? I'm a bit distracted by the flap with jar at the moment, but that's the only issue that matters on this thread. In any case, the traditional Biblical God is highly INcompatible with the ToE.By the way, we no longer have free will in the original sense God gave it to Adam and Eve. They had it and they blew it. We no longer have free will because we no longer have any connection to God as they did and have therefore no ability to choose to obey the true God from our own natures. But that gets into Calvinism and is probably a rabbit trail on this thread.

I asked. All jar has done is accuse me of making a mere assertion and refuse to see the argument I gave.AND no, his statement of what he -- or any number of people -- personally believes is NOT proof of anything, Asgara.And because of your friendship with jar you should have recused yourself from this task.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 10:52 PM

I will ignore jar's posts, including all his bullying insistence on my attending to them.

I have made myself perfectly clear.The Biblical God did not create a world full of death. The ToE assumes that death is natural, which is a cruel nature. Therefore the ToE and the God of the Bible are incompatible.That is the argument. It has been made over and over and over.That God is incompatible with the ToE. I don't care what people illogically talk themselves into believing, that God is incompatible with the ToE.That argument has been made. It is not an assertion, it is an argument.JAR is out of order.

Then we agree that far. If the God one believes in is thought to have created an environment of suffering and death for his creatures, that God is compatible with the ToE ...but a God who created everything good and life-enhancing and treats even those who rebelled against him with mercy and protection, is not compatible with the bloody death-driven ToE.We don't need to get into an argument about Bible interpretations. If your interpretation of God is the latter, then if you think you believe in the ToE you have a logical problem because that God is not compatible with the bloody ToE.Any other God or no God at all appear to be logically compatible however.It doesn't matter how you arrived at your view of God, the one view is incompatible while others have no conflict with it.

I believe that we MUST accept that the ToE is utterly incompatible with an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent good and loving God who made His creation good and life-enhancing, without suffering and death.

If anyone believes in the omnipotent omnipresent omniscient good God of love who did not create the universe with suffering and death in it, that person cannot logically also believe in the ToE which treats suffering and death as natural.If you believe in the ToE AND in that God you are living a logical contradiction.

But I am not addressing materialism, only atheism, which is definitely the most logical conclusion from the ToE, and have for the sake of argument conceded that an evil god, weak god or lesser gods of all kinds are also compatible -- but this is a purely academic point as nobody believes in any of these Gods. Really only Atheism is the most logical inference.The point of all this is to show that the GOOD God of the Bible is NOT compatible with the bloody ToE and that those who think so are deluding themselves.This HAS been shown.Over and over again.I haven't gotten around to thinking about materialism as such. Yes. That's fine. One can add all the lesser gods to ToE's ranks, no problem. But again this is a trivial academic point. The God everybody THINKS they believe in is in fact totally incompatible with the ToE which takes pain and death for granted. And this is why in reality the ToE promotes atheism.

Yes. It is also the traditional Christian position. Arguing it is not on topic for this thread. The point is only that this view of God is incompatible with the ToE no matter who holds it. This being the general view of God held by believers in the west, all the other gods having been proposed being mere academic props, the logical conclusion is that the ToE tends logically to atheism.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-31-2006 12:43 AM