|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What we must accept if we accept evolution Part 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The only point about the ToE that is part of the argument here is its treating suffering and death as natural. The Good God is not compatible with that idea. Nothing has been said about the creation of human beings. This point alone, about bloody death-driven Nature, makes the case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So you want to change the goalposts?
Did you or did you not assert that it is impossible to believe in the Christian Biblical GOD and also support the TOE?
Faith writes: Again, either NO God or any God except the Biblical God. in Message 34 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. Do you have proof that GOD did not create a world with death in it? I ask because the Bible says that he did. If you believe in the Biblical GOD you MUST believe that he created a universe with death as part of the system. To support that assertion I point to Genesis. There is a Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden. If the Universe did not include death then the God you believe in was a fool. Why create a Tree of Life where there is no death? If you believe your god created a universe without death then you do not believe in the Biblical GOD. Genesis 2:8-9
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground”trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
who created everything good is not compatible with a God who deliberately murdered almost the entire population of the earth in a global flood. Your problem is not with ToE. Your problem is that you have invented an inconsistent God. I don't believe in that view of God. That is your view, and apparently that view is quite compatible with the ToE, as all gods who promote evil are. I believe, however, that everything God does is good, and that He did not cause suffering and death, sin did. Therefore my view of God is incompatible with the ToE, which treats suffering and death as natural.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
You said that it is impossible to believe in the Biblical GOD and accept the TOE. Actually she didn't say this. She said
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. Which is different than its impossible to believe in Biblical God and accept ToE. Remebering that Faith generally doesn't mean ToE in the same way that scientists do. She generally uses it to mean common ancestry/evolution of life. She also takes the Biblical God to be the God of 'Creationism'. Any God that starts with a simple life and after much death develops man is not the God described in the Bible as far as Faith is concerned. Man came before death according to Faith. When one applies a little understanding, it gets easier. It is perfectly possible to believe two contradictory things at the same time. It does not mean the two things are compatible and not contradictory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You wanted to argue this on pure beliefs before, so let's do that.
I believe that God is pure goodness, that he did not make a world full of suffering and death. That God is not compatible with the ToE. If you believe in that God AND in the ToE you are contradicting yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
Then you're arguing with yourself! You believe that suffering is evil, you accept that suffering happens, you believe that a righteous god wouldn't create a universe full of suffering, yet you believe that such a god did create the Universe. You don't believe that the actions of a third party with free will (i.e. the supernatural beings I mentioned) can excuse the creator, so The Fall is no explanation.
Where am I going wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
But I am not addressing materialism, Its in the OP.
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. Are you seriously suggesting that there are only two kinds of people in the world monothiests and athiests?
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'm not debating this point. I'm agreeing with you when the terms as described are how you interpret them to mean. I was adding merely saying that ANY creator god that specially creates man is contradictory to evolution, and that includes your own God.
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. Correction 'the God almost all Christians THINK they believe in...', or even better 'the God almost all monotheists THINK they believe in...'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
No, she said any god except the Biblical God.
Again, either NO God or any God except the Biblical God. in Message 34. Since then she's been playing dualing definitions, moving goalposts, wiggling and denying evidence presented. In addition, the god she describes is not the Biblical GOD as described in Genesis 2 where he places a Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden. If there were no death, what would be the point of a Tree of Life? In addition, it was the fear of the Biblical God that Adam and Eve might eat of that tree and live forever that caused GOD to expel them from the GOE. Genesis 3:22
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." Faith has some strange idea of the GOD of the Bible, it's just not one that's supported by the Book itself. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The only point about the ToE that is part of the argument here is its treating suffering and death as natural. The theory doesn't really address suffering. It does address death. Death is natural in that it isn't supernatural.
Nothing has been said about the creation of human beings. This point alone, about bloody death-driven Nature, makes the case. Not disputing it, I'm just saying why stop there? We can include ANY deities that specially create humans, not just your own God, in the collection of gods which are incompatible with evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I believe that God is pure goodness, that he did not make a world full of suffering and death. That's fine Faith, you can believe in anything you want. I have never said you could not. But that is NOT the god in the Bible. If you want we can step through the proofs of that once again, beginning with Genesis. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iamaelephant Inactive Member |
Faith, what is it exactly that makes you think your biblical God is so loving and not evil? He/she created a universe that was perfect (from what I have read) and then when man sinned against him he introduced death, disease and suffering, evidently as a punishment. Seems to me he is an angry and vengeful God, not an all loving God.
You say the only God that is compatible with the ToE is an evil or ignorant God. Seems to me your biblical God fits the bill perfectly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
No, she said any god except the Biblical God. When she said that she was saying that athiesm = any god except the Biblical God. That is entirely irrelevant to what followed:
jar writes: You said that it is impossible to believe in the Biblical GOD and accept the TOE. Faith did not say this. She said the two were not compatible. One can believe contradictory things, but that does not make them compatible or non-contradictory.
Faith has some strange idea of the GOD of the Bible, it's just not one that's supported by the Book itself. That's fine, not being Christian, I don't care too much. The point is that her definition of God is not compatible with evolution. If you want to try and argue that her defintion of God is wrong, or misguided etc, be my guest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I have to admit Faith that although I admire your tenacity but I have trouble with your reasoning. God did create us to be creatures of reason.
Genesis tells us that time began because God spoke it into existance. If time has a beginning it will also have an end. The Bible tells us explicitly that this world will come to an end. The world coming to an end requires physical death for everyone eventually no matter what you say God's original intent was. If you read Roman's 1:20 it is clear that God gave us reason so that we could know him through our minds and his creation. The Christian faith has historically been rooted in the idea that we learn about God through the written scripture of the Bible and the created scripture in nature and our minds. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Really if you want to claim that you have a proof you need to actually address the rebuttals raised properly instead of simply trying to dismiss them with excuses.
quote: If we are talking about what logically follows from evolution then showing that the argument is actually based on accepting something other than evolution is a valid point. As I have pointed out - and you have not disputed - this is the case, Indeed you have conceded that exactly the same point applies to OEC. Therefore your argument is refuted.
quote: But indifference to entities beneath His notice is not evil. It is not even necessarily the case that this God has directly created the suffering and bloodshed you complain of. And if responsibility must be placed on a God in that situation rather than on those who actually inflict the suffering and bloodshed, then the Christian God is also in trouble - having a far more direct link to both than the hypothetical God you call evil. How can you hold a hypothetical God who did not even directly create humans responsible for human actions while not holding your God - who supposedly did create humans - equally responsible ?
quote: "Logically consistent" simply means that it is not self-contradictory. That is a very long way short of a proof. To have a logical proof you must rule out even possibilities you find implausible. (And I note that this is simply a version of a ommon Christian Theodicy - the "Unknown Purpose defence")- This message has been edited by PaulK, 01-31-2006 04:35 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Well lets look at your "argument"
quote: When you say that "the physical is all there was to evolve from" you are implicitly assuming the truth of materialsm. Thus your argument begs the question. If you accept that the immaterial may exist and be capable of interacting with the physical - and to reject either is to reject Substance Dualism and thus beg the question - then it follows that it may be a part of evolution. Even though such a view would go beyond science it is consistent with evolution and thus serves as a counter example to any argument you might produce. Let us note that I raised this point in the original thread. If you are going to accuse others of emotionally clinging to beleifs then you should at least be prepared to recognise when your own arguments have been shown to be grossly inadequate and cease to use them.n
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024