Film: Creation (2009)

perhaps it's because the notion of an omnibenevolent god is nonsense. it's certainly not supportable from a biblical standpoint, and it doesn't particularly jive with reality, either.

---

אָרַח

well, perhaps that's just for lack of further commentary, in which case i apologize for the shorter post. it's just on that particular issue that i fail to see the need for reconciliation. or rather, i do -- and the reconciliation is that this notion of god is wrong. logically speaking, if you have an assumption, and the assumptions plus the resulting facts lead you to a contradiction in terms, you have a proof by contradiction that your assumption was wrong.so, if we have the assumption: "there is an omnibenevolent (and omnipotent) god"and the observation: "evil exists"clearly, our assumption was in error. which is the best reconciliation here? acknowledging our error, or attempting to demonstrate some complex theological or philosophical construct in which evil is really good somehow? considering, particularly, that the omnibenevolence of god was not originally one of the core propositions of the tradition (indeed, the law exists because god's will alone was not good enough for man), i'm going to go with the first one.now, of course, there is a particular theodicy given in the film, if i recall. something along the lines of "we have to eat" and about how selection helps direct towards improvement. i take it you didn't like that particular explanation?in any case, though don't particularly find reasons to engage in mental gymnastics over this issue, there are certainly other issues that i find much more troubling. for instance, the god of the gaps issue. are these issues on topic here?

---

אָרַח

certainly. but isn't "that's probably not right" the best way to address the apparent contradiction?image we had a thread asking how we justify space shuttle orbits with a flat earth. wouldn't the most appropriate response be, "the earth isn't flat"? okay, should those people exist, they are welcome to contribute. do we have any members here that believe in an omnibenevolent god and recognize the factual evidence of evolution?

---

אָרַח

i still say my answer is valid possibility. the OP is asking a question that a) may very well not have an answer, at least an easily resolved one, and b) asking it of people that are quite rare, and may not even be present on this board. to suggest that the obvious contradiction is obviously a contradiction isn't really all that out of line in a thread asking how we make the obvious contradiction a not-so-obvious non-contradiction.

---

אָרַח

if your criteria is:

1. theist, and
2. understands evolution

then i meet your criteria. granted, i do not accept the omni-benevolence of god, but this actually comes from logical analysis based on your very assumption of that omni-benevolence. i reject it because it fails to make sense, especially in context of your argument.it's great that you want to hear explanations, but i personally find that obvious explanation is the one that also makes the most sense. it is sort of like if you asked a cult member how they explain the discrepancy between their prophet's projected date for the end of the world, and the fact that that date was several weeks ago, and they replied, "yes, well, that's why i left the cult". i suspect that you have answered your own question -- people who meet your criteria typically avoid the question, or frankly do not truly grasp the reality of evolution and/or their own religion. no, i think the topic is interesting, and i'd also like to hear other potential rationalizations. however, i still maintain that proposing an error in the assumptions is an appropriate response.and i object to the characterization that this stems from "an inability to think critically". questioning the basic assumptions is the epitome of thinking critically, particularly when basic rational logic clearly demonstrate that one or more assumptions is likely in error.i apologize that i did not provide the explanation you were fishing for. however, just because you don't like my explanation does not mean that it is not an explanation. and i maintain that is likely the most rational and supportable resolution given the two primary sources.

---

אָרַח

i understand, of course. you'll also note that i said i would personally welcome such responses because i am curious as well.personally, i suspect the answer is so obvious that you yourself even contributed it already: the people who do accept both propositions have not adequately analyzed either their religion, or evolution, or both -- they simply don't think about this kind of issue, or aren't aware of it. i suspect you will get a lot of silence on the issue, followed by a few small theodicies about how evil (waste, etc) really exists for a greater good, or some such other doublespeak. as i pointed out in Message 14, i believe this is the sort of explanation offered in the film itself. but as someone who used to accept both propositions myself, i can say that all of those guesses are based on personal experience. i had not adequately examined the religion, nor had i the will to think about it at any length (lest i be tempted to lose faith), and i frequently offered similar explanations about how evil was really good. if you look hard enough, i'm sure you can find examples of that on this very forum. for instance, i'm relatively positive that you can find me offering that very explanation in this thread, on god's relationship to the concept of evil. i'm not sure which is worse. however, you will note that i am very much applying critical thought to this idea and that i am not attempting to be rude. i am, i feel, genuinely contributing my stance.

---

אָרַח

this board has a long-running problem. we are extremely short on creationists. those that stick around generally fall into one (and only one) of two categories:

1. ardent cranks who fail to see basic logic, and
2. those that do see basic logic, and begin to come over to the evolutionist side

those that would meet your two very specific characteristics are a tiny subsection of that second group, which by nature is transitory and non-conformist. these are not people that fall into a specific category by definition, and who are constantly re-examining and adapting their own ideas. this means you really aren't very likely to meet people who hold those ideas simultaneously on this board.you will, however, meet a lot of people who understand evolution, and a few of those who are vaguely theistic and/or even christian. however, by and large, most of that grouping (jar, myself, etc) seem to reject the notion of omni-benevolence. that said, i mentioned in my previous response that i once did hold those two ideas simultaneously, and explained (perhaps uncharitably) my rationale. i provided a link where you can find a whole debate i participated in regarding theodicy.i'm sorry that this is not a sufficient response, or what you were looking for. but this is perhaps the best discussion you can get on a board populated by a lot of strictly rational thinkers, a few cranks, and a very nuanced middle ground. i think this discussion is fairly productive and interesting. i'm sorry it's not what you had in mind. but as i said, it's a bit like asking "how do people who believe in a flat earth explain NASA?" you kind of have to expect that people are going to respond "the earth isn't flat."

---

אָרַח