Film: Creation (2009)

So what if it is? We can all still discuss the topic without going to the blog.I think this is in the wrong forum, though, and Kelly circumvented the PNT process by posting in the Coffee House. I'll wait till that matter is sorted out before commenting on the actual topic.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

I don't think benevolence and wastefulness are necessarily exclusive characteristics. Combine this with the fact that benevolence and wastefulness are completely subjective qualities, and I'd say that there is little problem with an apparently benevolent God creating an apparently wasteful Universe.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

Then I am having difficulty understanding what this topic was meant to address, since you originally asked for a reconciliation of these two concepts, though now admit that they need no reconciling. Everything dies; almost every living thing ever already has died. What bearing does this have on the actual benevolence of God? How is death actually wasteful? On the face of it, it appears that Paul and anyone arguing in like fashion about the relationship of death and sin are simply wrong. However, it may be possible to reconcile the position Paul takes with our observation of reality. But even if that were done, I'm not sure what good it would do.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

Well, I cannot necessarily speak for those people; however, I do believe in GOD, and I am an empiricist and so far have seen every reason to know for myself that the theory of evolution is currently the most convincing explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. I also believe that GOD is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen (I think that's how the Christians word it, anyway).That said, perhaps you'll still find some value in my take on the matter, so here it goes: I do not believe in an absolute moralityI believe that morality is a human construct. I do not think animals hold morals, or that rocks hold morals, or that trees hold morals; what I see is that the only critters who hold to these things called 'morals' are humans. Our moral judgements and pronouncements are only relevant to ourselves. All the evidence indicates that they have meaning to no other creature other than us. So, we may decide GOD is bad, and if we believe GOD is bad, then so be itif GOD exists, then GOD exists; if evolution is true, then evolution is true. If we believe GOD is good, then so be itif GOD exists, then GOD exists; if evolution is true, then evolution is true.GOD cannot be either good or bad if for GOD neither good nor bad exist. Even if good and bad exist for GOD, then GOD's set of morals are only relevant to GOD (no matter whom else they may affect), and it is likely that GOD does things that GOD mostly sees as good so that GOD is likely convinced of HIS own benevolence. If GOD mostly does things that we believe are good, then that is some reason to support GOD; if GOD mostly does things that we believe are bad, then that is reason to oppose GOD. But none of that will change the fact that GOD still believes HERSELF to be benevolent. And, above and beyond all else, no matter how good or bad we perceive the world or how good or bad we perceive GOD, if GOD exists, GOD exists, and if the world is, then the world is.All the philosophers both dead and alive cannot, even collectively, think the existent out of existence.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

Not at all. Go ahead and jump into some of the other ongoing threads here if you want a genuine feel of how discussion unfolds at EvC.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

---

Love your enemies!

Indeed. Anyone who's given much thought to the question Mr. Wilson is asking has likely already come to a conclusion that requires discarding one of the premises. Thus, finding anyone who actually holds both arguments as truethat God is omnibenevolent (whatever that even means), and that evolution is true and somehow not benevolent (whatever that even means)¹is going to be a difficult task for Mr. Wilson.I once held to the 'tri-omni' God notion, but abandoned it as ridiculous after examining the evidence. The post I made earlier is my attempt to reconcile the notions of God with the available evidence; just like the posts you and CS have been making are your attempts to reconcile the matter of a 'tri-omni' God with the contradictory evidence.I am rather stunned that Mr. Wilson does not find our reconciliation attempts relevant to his question.Jon
__________
¹ Obviously for a contradiction here to even exist, we need to include the omnipotent and omnipresent qualities of the traditional 'tri-omni' God.

---

Love your enemies!