What evidence absolutely rules out a Creator

quote:

---

If evolution is true then the GOD OF WESTERN TRADITION is false, because they are mutually exclusive, and the points on which they contradict one another have been spelled out over and over.

---

No, what has been spelled out over and over is that evolution and robinrohan's (and presumably Faith's) conception of God is mutually exclusive. That may very well be true, but seems to me to be uninteresting (although I can see how it would be interesting to you).The theory of evolution does not rule out:(1) That the universe and the earth were created by some sort of deity;(2) that this deity is interested in humanity; and(3) that the Christian Bible is an imperfect record of humans coming to know this deity.Added by edit:Oops. Forgot to start with "Hi Faith", just so you realize I'm not piling on just to bash you.Further added by edit:I should also add that the theory of evolution also does not preclude the essential feature of the "God of Western Tradition", namely(4) it remains possible that the god might have a purpose for humans and might have standards;(5) humans have fallen far short of his standards, as explained metaphorically in Genesis; and(6) this god might have an afterlife prepared for humans where people will get there just desserts.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 15-Mar-2006 02:43 AM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

One of the points I will make is one that you have already made yourself, but I will repeat it.It is the traditional Christian view that animals do not have souls. Therefore they do not count. The Bible itself speaks about how wrong it is to murder human beings, yet the killing of animals for food (and ritual sacrifice) is encouraged. Obviously, according to traditional Christian beliefs animals are very different from human beings, so animal suffering and death may not matter much.The next point is that the Bible does allow, encourage, and even commands the death and suffering of human beings. During the conquest of Canaan, the Hebrews were ordered to wipe out the inhabitants to the last man, women, and child in some cases, and to enslave women and children in others. Clearly there are times when even human death and suffering have a purpose; why not the death and suffering of soulless animals if it is going to lead to humans?And finally, I will repeat that it is rather presumptuous of people to judge God according to their notions of right and wrong. You keep claiming that evolution is disproof of "the god of Western tradition". Well, the god of Western tradition is already so self-contradictory (and your failure to even provide a well-defined description of this god is evidence of this) that it isn't even necessary to bring up the theory of evolution to disprove god.At any rate, very few of us care whether or not a god who fits the Western traditional description exactly. What is of far more practical purpose is whether the essential message of the evangelical Christians are correct:Was the universe and humans created by a deity? Does this deity have a purpose for humans? Is the Bible a description (perhas imperfect, perhaps metaphorical) of how humans have fallen short? Are we in danger of a dire fate in the afterlife? Has God provided a means to escape this fate?None of this is disproved by evolution. You seem to fixate on one, very specific deity that, in my opinion, pretty much is already self-contradictory. If you want to believe that evolution disproves the existence of this one particular deity, then by all means believe it. You may be right about that (although it's hard to tell without a clearer description of what you think this Western traditional god actually is), but most of us fail to see the significance of this. Certainly there is no reason to believe that the god worshipped by the Christians or even the evangelicals fit this particular notion exactly.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

(1) evolution also eliminates the notion of a Fall

---

No, it merely eliminates the literal account of the Fall in Genesis. There is still the possibility that once humans evolved God granted them "spirit" as the Catholics believe, and then humans rebelled some time after that. Or even more materialistically, humans evolved the capacity of consciousness without divine intervention, and once they did God revealed himself, after which humans rebelled. There could still be a Fall, and Genesis could still be a (metaphorical) account of the Fall.Added by edit:

quote:

---

Some vague Eastern idea?

---

Well, if I had to bet money on the existence of the divine, this is where my bet would go.-

quote:

---

(2) evolution accounts for the origin of man.

---

Evolution may account for the origin of the humans as a physical species, but that isn't to say that there isn't a deity with a purpose for it all.-

quote:

---

This is what is so earth-shaking about evolution.

---

Well, if you believe the only reason people believe in deities is to explain the natural world, then, yes, the theory of evolution eliminates yet another reason to believe in gods. This is certainly part of the reason I don't believe in the existence of God.But this doesn't mean that there is no God. Just that the Bible does not describe actual, literal history.-

quote:

---

What other type of deity could there be than the all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God?

---

I don't see how all-knowing is needed to create a universe. Certainly it is not necessary for God to be all-powerful; just powerful enough to create the universe. Nor do I see the need for all-good -- not that all-good has any real meaning any way.-

quote:

---

I thought Christians, Jews, and Muslims believed in the sort of God I have described.

---

People believe in all sorts of strange things.Added by edit:

quote:

---

Some vague Eastern idea?

---

Well, if I had to bet money on the existence of the divine, this is where my money would go.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 15-Mar-2006 11:02 PM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

Seems like there would be something behind this sort of god that created him.

---

Maybe there is, but it is not a conscious entity. Or maybe it is, but it did not have any direct involvement with the creation of the universe and doesn't concern itself with it -- so the demiurge is the one with whom we have to deal. This other "something" is irrelevant for all practical purposes.Or maybe there isn't. Maybe this non-omnipotent, non-omniscient, non-all-good being has always existed forever (whatever that means for a being that might transcend time) -- there doesn't seem to be anything inherently contradictory about it.Or maybe this deity simply exists for no reason. I know you've expressed dissatisfaction with this, but it still seems to be a viable option to me.-

quote:

---

is it not illogical?

---

Can you explain where the contradiction lies?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

And so this demiurge would be an alien.

---

We can call it that if we want -- I don't particularly see why it matters. What matters is whether there is a something who created the world and can determine our fate in the afterlife.-

quote:

---

In which case this God that created our god would be responsible for our god's incompetence

---

I don't know whether incompetence is the right word to use. Just like the evangelicals would argue when about the question of God foreseeing that free will will lead to the Fall -- maybe the "flaws" are a necessary part of the design. Or maybe they aren't flaws -- maybe because we are the ones affected by death and disease we take a view of it that is too self-centered.-

quote:

---

There would be something else behind him as well.

---

Perhaps. I, by the way, have no problems with the idea of an "infinite regress".-

quote:

---

You might as well say that nature exists for no reason.

---

I have already stated that it probably does. Anyway, since you have "disproved God", isn't this now your view?-

quote:

---

The whole point of the concept of God is that he is the ultimate answer.

---

I've always thought that the whole point of the concept of God was to be part of a concrete representation of the metaphysical beliefs of a society.On the other hand, the whole point of the concept of God may be because God actually exists (just not as the neo-Platonists imagine him).

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Hi, Phat.I'm not sure that this post should be directed toward me. Read my post and the one to which I responded. I am not the one calling God incompetent.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

What does this mean? Belief in God occurs as a result of wanting to be part of a social club?

---

Sort of. People are social and live in societies. In these societies, the individuals have a sense of their place in society, their obligations to society (and the world at large), a sense of their rights, and system of ethics. Religion is one of the ways that maintain social cohesion: it provides a mythological/metaphorical framework spelling out and explaining the ethical and social conventions of the society as well as a shared set of rituals that help foster a sense of unity.I've read a bit of anthropology, and I don't recall reading anything that says the primary purpose of religion is to provide "explanations" for such things as the origins of the world or of humans. Rather, most of what I have read suggests that all institutions serve society in practical ways, either in providing the infrastructure for the material economy or to promote and preserve social cohesion.The anthropologist Marvin Harris has written a few popular books on anthropology; although I do think he takes things a bit far at time, I have a lot of respect for his cultural materialism approach.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Interesting, veiled virtue.But what do you think of the OP? Do you believe that the fossil record is proof of evolution? If evolution were proved, do you believe that this would prove God doesn't exist? Is there any physical evidence that can be potentially provided by science that would prove no god exists?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Hello, virtue.

quote:

---

we all need to become better listeners of one and other

---

Interesting comment, since you seem to have not gotten the point of my post, namely that there is a specific topic to this thread.The relevant sentence of the OP, in my opinion, is: So, in the spirit of the topic, what od you think? If the fossils really are transitionals and if the theory of evolution really does accurately describe the history of life on earth, does this prove the God does not exist? Does it prove that Christianity has no validity?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Hi, Trixie.Herepton believes that not believing in God is punishment from God...for not believing in him.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Alpha courses and fullfilled prophecies are all very interesting, but I hope that no one minds if I try to get things back on topic.The topic is the question whether the fossil record proves evolution and therefore proves the non-existence of God; in particular the death and disease that it implies, proves that God does not exist.One person has purported to have a logical proof that it does. However, there were several very severe flaws in his argument. Namely, he never (despite repeated requests) sufficient defines his terms clearly enough to determine whether his proof is logically valid. One example in particular, he continues to talk about how God must be "perfect" and the consequences this "perfection" must entail, but he has never, despite repeated requests, ever told us what perfection means in sufficiently precise detail to determine whether "perfection" is either a reasonable assumption nor whether the alleged consequences are implied.The other flaw (and I think that jar may have been trying to make this point) is that logical proofs don't in fact prove anything about the real world. Even if the logic in the argument is perfectly valid, the argument is only as sound as the premises. But premises can only be assumed; unless everyone accepts the premises as self-evident the argument isn't going to be convincing.In some instances, a premise may be a conclusion proven from a prior argument; but since all arguments must have premises and a circular series of arguments is unsound, either there must be an infinite regress of premises to be proven, or there must be some set of premises that are simply accepted. In any case, we mere mortals are forced to start with some set of premises that are considered self-evident. If the disputants cannot agree to a set of premises, then no logical argument is possible. That is just the way it is.Finally (and I think this might be part of the point jar was trying to make), even if all parties agree to the premises, that does not mean that the premises are in fact true statements about the real universe. The history of science and philosophy is littered with convincing logical proofs that were abandoned when new discoveries showed that the old assumptions were simply incorrect, and that the world actually works in ways that are often extremely counter-intuitive. Again, that is just the way it is; history has shown that very reasonable and intuitive ideas are simply wrong, and so no proof can be completely trusted to have actually proven anything about the real world.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

It would appear that I have already made my final statement on this thread. Even though robinrohan responded to it, I will let it stand as my last say.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

In my prayers, I am either talking to Him or talking to myself!

---

And in the end, what matters is whether it works for you.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Well, what robinrohan's argument seems to rule out is God being good as judged by robinrohan.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt