|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4860 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Evolution the Work of Satan? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
nwr writes: The correct solution for religion, is that they should paint an honest picture of the world. Dr Adequate writes:
They can still have cultural traditions and rituals.In what sense would that be religion? Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
I have never been able to find Biblical support for the concept of Original Sin, certainly not in the Garden of Eden story. Romans 5: 12-19.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Why is the idea of evolution such a threat for fundamentalists? Because it gives atheist authors ideas for things to write about?
quote: I'd bet my bottom dollar that the word "evolution" appears in each of those books many times.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
LOL
Paul makes an assertion but never supports his position. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Or is the natural evil of evolution, contrary to Ayala’s view, a reason to reject the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God? Benevolent by whose standards? Omniscient by whose standards? Omnipotent by whose standards? And why is this thread limited to Christians? Certainly theirs is not the only opinion on GOD and the powers of evil. Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
You said you couldn't find "Biblical support". Paul provides biblical support.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Start a thread on it.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Start a thread on it. There's nothing more to be said! You couldn't find something very basic to Christianity, and I showed you where it was.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Except of course, it does not support original sin, start a thread on it and I will be happy to discuss it.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Stephen Push writes: Some Christians -- notably physician and geneticist Francis Collins and biologist and philosopher Francisco Ayala -- believe in both evolution and an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God. For example, Ayala said: quote: Stephen Push writes: Does the theory of evolution really get God off the hook for permitting natural evil (i.e., suffering caused by nature, as opposed to moral evil, caused by human misdeeds)? It seems to me that Ayala is begging the question. If God created the evolutionary process, why is it so clumsy? Why does it cause so much suffering? I don’t see it as a case of letting God off the hook. I don’t know where the idea that God was omnipotent came from. I don’t see it in the Bible. Probably my dog sees me as being somewhat omnipotent but that doesn’t make it so. By our standards a designer of the universe would seem omnipotent but again I don’t see it as being the case. The Old Testament is full of stories of God working with people, negotiating with people and encouraging people. In short God seems to be at work, within His creation to continually improve on it, and the vehicle He uses for that are those people created in His image. Jesus came to establish something new within history with a new covenant and the establishment of a new kingdom. Prior to Jesus coming the prophet Micah told people what it was that God wanted. He said that what God wanted of us is that we should love kindness, do justice and walk humbly with our God. Jesus confirmed that message and charged us all with the mission to go out the world to spread that message and to live it in our own lives. The result of that should be a lot less suffering, however, as humans we are doing a pathetic job of carrying out the mission that we have been given. Jesus was another example of God endeavouring to bring an end to suffering, and continues through His created people to do that today. As a Christian I believe that time as we experience it now, will come to an end and there will be a new creation where the suffering does finally come to an end. The point that I am making is that I see God as being all powerful in our terms, which is not the same as being omnipotent. We don’t know what parameters a designer would have to work with. We have children and we have dreams of what they might be in the future. We can influence their lives, we can love them more than we thought possible, but it doesn’t always work out the way we would like. I have a strong hunch that things aren’t working out as well as God would like, but I also believe that He doesn’t give up on us because he is a loving benevolent God. I see science including biology as essentially another form of scripture as we can learn about God through His creation. It appears that some form of an evolutionary process is what God used to bring His creation to the point that it is today. From our view point it isn’t perfect, but maybe from God’s view point, working within whatever parameters He had to work with, it was the best and possibly only way to do it. Maybe it was either this or nothing. As far as free will is concerned I have to agree with Augustine and others that without it would be simply robots and what would be the point. For that matter, within the framework of this life if we didn’t have the ability to know and understand suffering, we wouldn’t be able to know and understand joy. Joy would just become the way things always are and would be a meaningless term. The same of course goes with our ability to know and understand good and evil.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4860 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
Jon asked:
Benevolent by whose standards? Omniscient by whose standards? Omnipotent by whose standards? Anyone's standards. Your standards, if you like. In your opinion, what standards of benevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence are consistent with a God who allows his sentient creatures to suffer from the natural evil entailed by the evolutionary process?
And why is this thread limited to Christians? Certainly theirs is not the only opinion on GOD and the powers of evil. I focused on Christians because I know they believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God. Being less familiar with non-Christian faiths, I don't know whether Jews and Muslims attribute all three of those qualities to God. But if they do, I would be interested in hearing their views on the subject, too. Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2107 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
In your opinion, what standards of benevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence are consistent with a God who allows his sentient creatures to suffer from the natural evil entailed by the evolutionary process? God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks, please. Cash and in small bills. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4860 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
GDR wrote:
I don’t know where the idea that God was omnipotent came from. It is the first profession of faith in the Apostles' Creed: "I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth."
As a Christian I believe that time as we experience it now, will come to an end and there will be a new creation where the suffering does finally come to an end. That day may or may not come. My question is, Why has natural evil been necessary since the dawn of sentient life?
The point that I am making is that I see God as being all powerful in our terms, which is not the same as being omnipotent. The term "all powerful" doesn't seem to leave any wiggle room. Either it is all or a quantity less than all.
I have a strong hunch that things aren’t working out as well as God would like, but I also believe that He doesn’t give up on us because he is a loving benevolent God. That view may be relevant to moral evil, which may be a result of humanity's moral failings. But I don't see how that has anything to do with natural evil, especially natual evil visited upon sentient animals and human infants, who are not moral agents.
From our view point it isn’t perfect, but maybe from God’s view point, working within whatever parameters He had to work with, it was the best and possibly only way to do it. Maybe it was either this or nothing. It sounds to me like you are describing a being who is something less than all powerful. You apparently believe that there are natural laws that constrain God. You would not be the first believer who decided, when confronted with the problem of evil, that it would be better to believe God is not omnipotent or omniscient than believe God is not benevolent.
As far as free will is concerned I have to agree with Augustine and others that without it would be simply robots and what would be the point. For that matter, within the framework of this life if we didn’t have the ability to know and understand suffering, we wouldn’t be able to know and understand joy. Joy would just become the way things always are and would be a meaningless term. The same of course goes with our ability to know and understand good and evil. Again, I see how the above argument might apply to moral evil and moral agents. I don't see how it justifies natural evil that causes suffering to sentient animals and human infants. Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given. Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Stephen Push writes: It is the first profession of faith in the Apostles' Creed: "I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth." I think that the ability to create the universe as it now stands would qualify as "almighty". Omnipotent means "unlimited power" which is not the same thing.
Stephen Push writes: That day may or may not come. My question is, Why has natural evil been necessary since the dawn of sentient life? I go back to the point that there is no absolute answer, but it is obvious in both science and scripture that this is a creation in process. We don't know what limitations exited or still exist for that matter.
Stephen Push writes: The term "all powerful" doesn't seem to leave any wiggle room. Either it is all or a quantity less than all. I did say "all powerful in our terms". Compared to an ant I am all powerful. God compared to me is all powerful but that is not the same thing as having infinite power whatever that might mean.
Stephen Push writes: It sounds to me like you are describing a being who is something less than all powerful. You apparently believe that there are natural laws that constrain God. You would not be the first believer who decided, when confronted with the problem of evil, that it would be better to believe God is not omnipotent or omniscient than believe God is not benevolent. Frankly it isn't a matter of making that choice. As I said before even the scriptures tell the story of a God who works with and adjusts to His creation. The Bible is a grand narrative of God continuing to work with people so that eventually everyone will be humble, love kindness and do justice. On the scientific side, the evolutionary process, from a theistic point of view, is evidence of a creator that continues to work to improve on his creation.
Stephen Push writes: Again, I see how the above argument might apply to moral evil and moral agents. I don't see how it justifies natural evil that causes suffering to sentient animals and human infants. I go back to what I said before. We don't know what limitations there are in creating a universe. Maybe it was this or nothing in which case I'm glad he chose this, and seeing as how we all here have chosen to continue on as opposed to suicide, I’m pretty sure that we are all be of the same opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4860 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
The term "omnipotent" is synonymous with "almighty" and "all-powerful." As defined by the OED, for example, "omnipotent" means:
As an attribute of a god, esp. the Christian God or Christ: almighty; all-powerful, having infinite power. But "process theism" has redefined these terms:
The term all-powerful cannot be abandoned for religious reasons, but the concept has been all but abandoned in the details.
This may be one reason why some philosophers and theologians have come to favor process theism over philosophical theism. According to process theism, God is incapable of exerting coercive power over creation. Instead, God can at most exert persuasive power. God cannot impose divine will on people, but God can try to persuade people about what should be done and then people will either agree or disregard God’s advice. This limitation to persuasion includes an inability to perform miracles just as God cannot enforce divine will on humans, it is also impossible for God to violate the laws of nature. Classical theists have argued that this renders God less worthy of worship because, presumably, being worthy of worship requires an ability to enforce one’s will against all possible opposition. Process theists, however, state that God’s inability to impose divine will on the world is actually a moral advantage, rendering God more respectable and more impressive. Thus, omnipotence is explicitly sacrificed in order to better secure other attributes regarded as ultimately more important. (Source: God Is Omniscient: What Does It Mean to Be All-Knowing?)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024