|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What we must accept if we accept evolution Part 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
Evolutionists certainly seem to believe that a lawful universe could simply have happened without such a cause, or a designer, or a mind that brought it about, but THAT's the irrational belief. Lawfulness implies a law-maker; design implies a designer. these are only so because humanity requires a law-maker to instill law. the universe may not. it is foolish and irrational to generalize humanity upon the universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
IMHO, if GOD exists, he would simply laugh at anyone who suffered such a fate and did not simply deny God. I thought it possible you would say something like this but found it hard to believe anyway, that anyone would deny the martyrs. So you think those who refused to deny Jesus when the Caesars demanded it, and went to the lions and suffered being burned as torches, and all the other martyrdoms down the centuries thereafter, were just laughable fools. And those all over the world now, who refuse to deny Christ in the face of imprisonments and torching of their villages and beheadings and other atrocities, likewise just fools.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
clpMINI Member (Idle past 5193 days) Posts: 116 From: Richmond, VA, USA Joined: |
Death was not part of God's creation. It is part of the ToE, in fact essential to it, it is driven by death. You've mentioned death and suffering alot throughout this thread. Are you thinking specifically about humuan death and suffering, or do other animals count too? What about plants? They may not suffer as we think of it, but they certainly die. Did micro-organisms also live forever? Did no one ever stub their toe in the garden of eden? And I think that death most certainly was part of God's creation. He created a heaven and a hell for everyone to go to when they die. Fianlly, do you think that death necessary?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And those all over the world now, who refuse to deny Christ in the face of imprisonments and torching of their villages and beheadings and other atrocities, likewise just fools. I don't know what I think of them, but I'm damn sure that GOD considers their acts foolish. GOD is a God of love. Christianity is a religion of life. A god that would want folk killed or tortured simply to show respect for his name is pretty pitiful, a small little gremlin of no intrinsic worth. She would be a narcissistic underachiever. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
yep. just as laughable as those who proclaim e-conspiracy. it is noble to believe in something so strongly. but to die for it when instead you could live to actually accomplish something... they are no less worthy of our pity and concern than those who simply died because they were born the wrong color or had the wrong grandparents.
christians need to worry less about martyrs and more about victims of murder that had no choice in their execution. a christian could easily choose to deny and live. what about all the 'witches' that christians killed by drowning or other methods that the execution was part of the trial? what about the 'infidels' the christians murdered in the crusades? what about the millions of people that die every year because christians do nothing but sit at home praying and rubbing their hands together? what about those who die of aids because christians are worried that encouraging the use of condoms might endanger their immortal soul?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
well said.
nobody ever thinks about the microbes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Death was not part of God's creation. It is part of the ToE, in fact essential to it, it is driven by death.
quote: Yes, it is natural if evolution is true, and treated as natural by any God that is compatible with evolution.
Are you thinking specifically about humuan death and suffering, or do other animals count too? What about plants? They may not suffer as we think of it, but they certainly die. Did micro-organisms also live forever? Did no one ever stub their toe in the garden of eden? Animals and humans only. I don't include plants or microorganisms, and I don't think any pain, even of stubbing the toe, existed in Eden. Others think even plants count as life, and that eating them is cruelty, think eating dirt is the only moral solution to the problem, but I think plants were given for food, have no feelings and are in a different class.
And I think that death most certainly was part of God's creation. He created a heaven and a hell for everyone to go to when they die. Not until after the Fall. It was the Fall that brought death and Hell into existence. The original Creation was good, without death and destruction.
Fianlly, do you think that death necessary? Now it is. No living thing escapes it now. But before the Fall it didn't exist. But this is pretty much off topic. This message has been edited by Faith, 02-02-2006 12:10 PM This message has been edited by Faith, 02-02-2006 12:17 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Animals and humans only. I don't include plants or microorganisms, and I don't think any pain, even of stubbing the toe, existed in Eden. I'm not trying to play "gotcha", but I did genuinely have a question about this. Pain exists as a signal of injury from the body. Undetected injuries can result in tissue necrosis - this is common in persons who have lost sensation in the extremities, like sufferers of leprosy - and so the body warns us of injury via pain. How did it work in Eden? If you stub your toe and it doesn't hurt, what prevents you from suffering even greater injury? Or is it just that no injury occurs? Rocks leap out of the way at the approach of your foot? Like I said I'm not trying to put you on the spot, and I don't intend to press this as a discussion. I was just hoping you'd briefly expand your thoughts on this, if you felt like doing it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't think there were any accidents in Eden at all. I think perfection means that people don't even stub their toes, that their perceptions are perfect and such things don't happen. The rock doesn't jump, they just know exactly where it is and miss it. That's my guess. No injury, no death, no pain, no accidents, no collisions, no mistakes. They had the potential to fall into that state though.
Fortunately we won't even be able to fall into that state in heaven --or in the new earth or the New Jerusalem. {abe: and since Jesus was able to walk through walls after the resurrection, and we will have bodies like His, I suppose that is another possible way it could happen -- we'll just walk through rocks.} This message has been edited by Faith, 02-02-2006 01:35 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Phat writes:
What is being called "evolutionism" is more correctly named "materialism". Even that is confusing, in that materialism (as a philosophy, ideology) is distinct from methodological materialism as a practice followed in one's science. BeliefNet (Cardinal Schnborn) writes: ...What are your objections to the theory of evolution? Evolution is a scientific theory. What I call evolutionism is an ideological view that says evolution can explain everything in the whole development of the cosmos, from the Big Bang to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. I consider that an ideology. It's not good for science if it becomes ideological, because it leaves it own field and enters the area of philosophy, of world views, maybe of religion. Many scientists will admit to methodological materialism, but often without any commitment to a materialistic ideology. It is unfortunate that some people try to label all evolutionists as materialists. Many are not.
Can one reasonably say the origin of man and of life can be explained only by material causes? Can matter create intelligence? This question cannot be answered scientifically, because the scientific method cannot grasp it. Here we can only argue philosophically, metaphysically, or religiously. At present, science cannot settle these questions. But it might be able to settle them in the future. It is not up to the Cardinal to dictate what science may study).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Fair enough; thanks for the response.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Firstly the idea that Nihilism can be adequately described as the notion that the human species has no formal purpose seems dubious. At the least it is a rarefied definition and to use it without specifying in the OP that this was the definition to be used is not. I thought it was a rather nifty definition myself. Your second sentence seems to be unfinished. Is not what? I did not specify it because we went on and on about "formal purpose" in another thread. I figured people would remember. More, my definition of nihilism makes perfect sense to me if in fact we were created by natural processes.
Secondly you cannot disprove the existence of anything simply by stating that you do not like the idea. Your dismissal of inconvenient God-concepts on this basis is thus not even a rational argument. It's not about liking or not liking. In fact, a weak God that's doing the best He can is very attractive to me. But it's not a reasonable description of the Creator.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: i.e. your definition is crafted to fit your argument, rather than to give an accurate impression of nihilism as it exists. That you should find the need to do that indicates that you don't have much of a case if you should choose a more accurate definition (and BTW it is bad form to assume that everyone follows every thread - if you use an idiosyncratic definition you should really say so, certainly when it is a major point).
quote: In what way is it unreasonable ? Triggering a Big Bang event in such a way as to get a universe that would probably produce life is not obviously more difficult to a potential creator than micromanaging the appearance and development of life on many planets. Moreover, the sort of creator which Faith calls "evil" simply because it is above considering the petty goings on of biologcal life is hardly unreasonable. Life on Earth has existed only a fraction of the current age of the universe in a very tiny part of it. Why should something that makes universes be interested ? e
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Only the third position then can really support your case. The Fall is your only candidate for such an explanation. If it is inadequate then your argument fails. Let's say we are back before there was any idea about Darwinism. What did people say about the problem of pain? I'm not for certain, but whatever answers they came up with were probably not very satisfactory. So one might dismiss the idea of God long before the TOE. I agree with all this. I also agree that one does not necessarily need TOE to dismiss the idea of God. However, all of these ideas against the concept of God were purely philosophical and uncertain. Along comes TOE. TOE tells us that we evolved by a natural process. It also tells us that we evolved physically. It tells us that we did not spring out of dust and that we were not "special creations." It tells us that we evolved just like every other life form did. It tells us that our ancestor was a lizard, and before that a one-celled life form. It gives us scientific evidence to back all this up. It also tells us what Natural Selection is all about: it's about what survives and what doesn't; it's about the "war" in nature. This is all very powerful evidence against the idea of a Good, All-Powerful Creator, much more powerful than earlier atheistic philosophies. Why? Because it's scientific and because it explains our origins. 1. TOE gives a story about the naturalness of suffering.2. TOE gives us a story about the naturalness of our origins. Here's another idea (tentative on my part): I'm wondering how our origins were explained before ideas of evolution began to come about. The only explanation, I can see, would be special creation by God. So, despite the problem of pain, people found it almost impossible to dismiss the notion of God. How else could we have got here? So atheistic arguments were much less convincing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
.e.
your definition is crafted to fit your argument, rather than to give an accurate impression of nihilism as it exists My definition was crafted long before I even thought of this topic.
and BTW it is bad form to assume that everyone follows every thread - if you use an idiosyncratic definition you should really say so, certainly when it is a major point). OK. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-02-2006 04:23 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024