|
Author
|
Topic: Believing it is not proving it
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: its a big misunderstanding
Now, RR's argument has been changed to saying that christianty and evolution are exclusive, so having someone that believes in both is not an argument for why they are not exclusive. His argument went from 'a person cannot believe in both' to 'one rules out the other'. No, the argument did not change. It's exactly the same as it was originally. When I say that one cannot be a Christian and an evolutionist, I meant, of course, that the two positions are logically incompatible. Obviously, anybody can believe anything, no matter how irrational. Why on earth would I argue against that? Paulk and Modulus, even though they disagree with me, know what I was arguing, and they also know that Jar's saying that he and a 100 million Catholics believe in Christianity and evolution is totally irrelevant.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 131 by nwr, posted 04-02-2006 12:41 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 125 of 300 (300249)
04-02-2006 12:14 PM
|
|
|
The greater good
Let me address Modulus' point about my not accepting a God "of the greater good." In order for that argument to be plausible, the situation must be such that one cannot imagine God doing something in a different way than the way He did it, and achieving the same results. One might plausibly argue, for example, that giving man free will was for the greater good--and that nothing else would do. But one cannot say that in regard to evolution. The greater good of evolution, one assumes, would be the creation of many sorts of life forms. But God might have done it in a different way than the particularly painful way of evolution--namely, special creation. So that "God of the greater good" argument fails. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-02-2006 11:15 AM
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 127 by Modulous, posted 04-02-2006 12:26 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 126 of 300 (300252)
04-02-2006 12:25 PM
|
|
|
Now let me address Asgara's remark that I am imagining an "anthropomorphic" God. I suppose she means that I am applying my morals to God and am expecting God to think as I do. If one is Christian, one must apply our morals to God. Otherwise, the concept of "sin" would make no sense. If we don't know right from wrong, we are incapable of sinning--just as an animal is incapable of sinning. So if one is a Christian (or Jew or Muslim), one must have an objective sense of right and wrong, and if one judges evolution morally, one must convict God of doing harm to innocents. Obviously, this won't do.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 128 by Asgara, posted 04-02-2006 12:30 PM | | robinrohan has replied | | | Message 140 by jar, posted 04-02-2006 1:06 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 129 of 300 (300258)
04-02-2006 12:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 128 by Asgara
04-02-2006 12:30 PM
|
|
Giving feeling type labels to nature just seems weird coming from someone who labels himself a nihilist. My nihilism is based on absorbing the full implications of evolution.
"Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!"--T. S. Eliot
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 128 by Asgara, posted 04-02-2006 12:30 PM | | Asgara has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 133 of 300 (300264)
04-02-2006 12:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 131 by nwr
04-02-2006 12:41 PM
|
|
Re: its a big misunderstanding
The assertion "one cannot be a Christian and an evolutionist" can be directly refuted by exhibiting an example of someone who is both a Christian and an evolutionist. That's where jar listed himself as that counter example. Ridiculous.
The assertion "the two positions are logically incompatible" does not require refutation. Rather, it requires logical proof. I'll note only that Robin has failed, after several threads on the topic, to provide such proof. The assertion seems obviously wrong, since the two positions don't seem to address anything in common that could make them logically incompatible This God created a situation in which, in order to survive, life forms must torture, kill, and eat other life forms. There's your all-good God at work.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 131 by nwr, posted 04-02-2006 12:41 PM | | nwr has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 135 of 300 (300267)
04-02-2006 12:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 134 by Asgara
04-02-2006 12:52 PM
|
|
Re: its a big misunderstanding
That is not an argument against a creator, just one particular concept of one. There is no other concept of God that makes any sense.
"Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!"--T. S. Eliot
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 134 by Asgara, posted 04-02-2006 12:52 PM | | Asgara has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 136 by Asgara, posted 04-02-2006 12:54 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 137 of 300 (300269)
04-02-2006 12:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 136 by Asgara
04-02-2006 12:54 PM
|
|
Re: its a big misunderstanding
Why would a god have to be all good? Any other concept makes Him an extraneous entity.
"Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!"--T. S. Eliot
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 136 by Asgara, posted 04-02-2006 12:54 PM | | Asgara has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 138 by Asgara, posted 04-02-2006 12:59 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 139 of 300 (300273)
04-02-2006 1:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 138 by Asgara
04-02-2006 12:59 PM
|
|
Re: its a big misunderstanding
Not looking for opinion, what is your reasoning? If God is not the ideal being, the answer to everything, He doesn't matter. There would be something behind Him that is greater. He would be a mere Pagan God, a super-human or alien.
"Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!"--T. S. Eliot
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 138 by Asgara, posted 04-02-2006 12:59 PM | | Asgara has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 141 of 300 (300278)
04-02-2006 1:08 PM
|
|
|
Jar's other argument
Besides asserting that he believes something, which is supposed to be a refutation, the only other argument Jar has been able to come up with is that evolution is "perfect." That's a rather strange use of the word "perfect." If a woman gave birth to 10 babies, and 3 of those had birth defects, I don't think we would say that her birthings were "perfect." True, she did give birth to 7 healthy babies, but we could hardly call the process perfect. That's the situation with evolution.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 144 by jar, posted 04-02-2006 1:27 PM | | robinrohan has replied | | | Message 150 by lfen, posted 04-02-2006 2:59 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 142 of 300 (300281)
04-02-2006 1:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 140 by jar
04-02-2006 1:06 PM
|
|
Re: I find your position illogical
No, right and wrong are not objective. They are subjective and depend on the exact circumstance of any given incident. If morality is subjective, it is meaningless. Our sense of right and wrong would be no more meaningful that our preference for one color over another. A Christian, logically speaking, must believe in an objective morality. (And please don't reply, "Well, I'm a Christian and I believe in a subjective morality"--your usual ploy).
"Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!"--T. S. Eliot
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 140 by jar, posted 04-02-2006 1:06 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 145 by jar, posted 04-02-2006 1:31 PM | | robinrohan has not replied | | | Message 146 by nwr, posted 04-02-2006 1:37 PM | | robinrohan has not replied | | | Message 147 by lfen, posted 04-02-2006 2:29 PM | | robinrohan has not replied | | | Message 148 by ringo, posted 04-02-2006 2:33 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 143 of 300 (300283)
04-02-2006 1:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 140 by jar
04-02-2006 1:06 PM
|
|
Re: I find your position illogical
But man, if you are a Christian, is not the one to judge GOD Since I'm not a Christian, this injunction doesn't apply to me.
"Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!"--T. S. Eliot
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 140 by jar, posted 04-02-2006 1:06 PM | | jar has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: I find your position illogical
also RR are you sure you are a nilist? shouldn't you not care one way or another? Just one more argument to support my theory that there is no God.
"Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!"--T. S. Eliot
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 170 by ReverendDG, posted 04-02-2006 5:23 PM | | ReverendDG has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 172 of 300 (300388)
04-02-2006 9:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 168 by Morte
04-02-2006 5:02 PM
|
|
Re: Lookingglass Logic at EvC
It sounded to me like he's not saying that what he believes proves it's right to believe it, but is making an argument against the associative implication of the statement "Christian evolutionism is an oxymoron", that Christian evolutionism (the belief) cannot exist. Just a possibility, however; it's how I read the exchange Obviously, it exists. I'm just saying it's illogical. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-02-2006 08:21 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 168 by Morte, posted 04-02-2006 5:02 PM | | Morte has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 173 of 300 (300390)
04-02-2006 9:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 144 by jar
04-02-2006 1:27 PM
|
|
Re: Jar's other argument
your example also reduces GOD to nothing more than some theological equivalent of a machine that should be judged on the reliability of the products it stamps out. That is not just illogical, it is anathema to either Christianity or any religion. I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. If we don't know right from wrong, then we can't sin. If we can't sin, Christianity is meaningless. You, a Christian, don't seem to understand what Christianity is all about. It's all about man's sins. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-02-2006 08:26 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 144 by jar, posted 04-02-2006 1:27 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 176 by jar, posted 04-02-2006 9:35 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: I find your position illogical
Like I said before about robin's position, its all based on a strawman version of god not on what people believe in reality So what is it that people believe "in reality"? That God is a sort of demi-God out there doing the best He can? Is that what people BELIEVE?
"Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!"--T. S. Eliot
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 170 by ReverendDG, posted 04-02-2006 5:23 PM | | ReverendDG has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
