Summations Only

foreveryoung writes: It seems to me that when new species are formed, they usually contain more genetic material and not less.

You're right.

But, really, so is Faith... in a way that doesn't seem to coincide with her main point.

Faith is referencing the cheetah's low amount of genetic variation in being a diverse species. This is true.
But it's not true because the cheetah has evolved over many, many years. It's true simply because there aren't many cheetahs.

Think of a population... then split that population between 2 factors.
Then take each of those groups and split them between the same 2 factors again.
Do this over and over again many times.
Obviously... any particular 1 group will be much less "diverse" than the original, entire population.

Now, kill off all groups except for one.
This one group is all that's left, and it has a "low amount of genetic variation."

This is what Faith's talking about. Except she's claiming that it's due to evolution... just because the selection process has occurred many, many times. But that part isn't true. It's not due to the evolution process... it's due to the killing-off-of-all-the-others fact.

Take humans as the example for the other side of the fence. We've evolved over the same number of "many, many years" as the cheetah. But we are very genetically diverse. This is because nothing is "killing off" all the splits that we've been making.

Alias writes: Greetings yenmor and everyone else reading this post/thread, I have not read much of the thread so I don't know if any of my points have been made or argued. I will respond directly to yenmor as he is the op.

Hello Alias!

Don't worry about posting stuff others may have talked about. As long as you put it in your own words, it's worth the post.
The only strict thing around here is staying on topic, and that's just a matter of location.
Feel free to go off topic as much as you'd like... just either start another thread for it or do it in a thread where it is on topic. It helps keep the place organized.

Don’t get me wrong, I know there are terrible things happening in the world but it does not mean god is not loving and god does not exist.

Actually, it very well might.
Why believe in a small God that cannot prevent these things, even if He wanted to?
Why not believe in a bigger God that could do something to stop terrible things from happening?

If the answer boils down to: "because this is the world we live in" ...then we enter the issue of imagining God to fit our world. Which tends to point to God being from our imagination instead of actually existing.

And if god does exist it does not have to or need to respond or help those in pain by keeping them alive, etc in order to be loving.

Actually, He does, if He has the power to do so. Otherwise He's just mean.

Maybe that is a test for humanity to love each other enough to help each other?

Could be. But that would be a very mean test. A mean test is not loving.
No "loving" being would create a test where innocent people are raped and killed in order to see if some other humans can love each other and help each other out. That's a psychotic test.

Actually in my view no matter how silly the bible may appear it is not about science it is about morality. Nature does not teach morality.

Nature does teach morality, it's just not a great one. Same with the Bible... not a particularly great moral system.
People can imagine better moralities, though. We're good at improving on existing ideas.

Alias writes: First off, there is no reason to think a "big god" is any more able to help than a "small god".

Sorry for the terminology. I didn't mean big as in "physically larger", I meant it in a more general "more powerful" sense. I just took the big/small terminology from the focus of the thread.
But, yes... there certainly is a reason to think that "a more powerful god" is better equipped to help... He would be more powerful, it would be easier for Him.

IT could ALSO be that "god" chooses a different teaching style depending on the situation (teach by letting us experience or by interfering).

Right. This is the point.

God may not be loving enough or powerful enough to help us.
So... why not believe in a God who is "all-loving" and "all-powerful"? Well... other than the fact that such a God obviously doesn't exist, because of all the evil around us, anyway.

Therefore, logically-consistent people are forced to believe in a God that is either restricted in power, or doesn't care enough to help us as much as He could.

ALSO the authority of right/wrong is up to "god" not people.

Not according to the Bible...
And not according to any system of morality that's worth anything.
If God chooses to act in ways that affect intelligent people, then it damn-well is the authority of those intelligent people who are affected to say whether or not what God has done is right or wrong.

Any other way around it is just silly.

Let's say I create an ant farm. I gather some ants and make sure they breed... if it wasn't for me the ant farm would not exist at all.
Now, then I decide to kill some ants, but not others and decide to say this is "good for the ants."
Does that make any sense?
Of course not... the one doing the actions doesn't get to judge their own results.
it's the ones who are affected who get to judge if what happened was good or bad. (And we will assume that the ants do not want to die according to my whims).

Why would it be different for God? There's nothing special about God. Even if He is more powerful then us. Even if He did create the universe. Even if He did create mankind... that doesn't give Him any rights to do whatever-the-hell-he-wants and call it "good." I'll punch Him in the nose for being a petulant child for that.

It is like being a child expecting things from parents. Sometimes we deserve what we expect and sometimes we don't. And in good parenting this can be extremely loving.

No, it's not like this at all. Parents are very restricted in regards to their "power". Therefore, it's logically consistent for a non-all-powerful parent to make mistakes, and only help out as best they can.

Unless you're saying God is only as powerful as a human? Then it makes sense... Puny God, though.
Do you believe in such a powerless ("small") God?

However, if we could see the BIG picture better (concluding there is a bigger picture and we are fish in a fish tank) it would all make much more sense (I would hope) and we would understand how it is loving (I would hope).

This is very possible.
But without any ideas to point towards the empty hopefulness... there's no reason to blindly have faith in a God that obviously doesn't exist.
Unless it simply makes you feel better. That's a pretty good reason.
And, of course, it's just as possible that God's totally evil and screwing with us as much as He can. After all, if we're in the fish tank, we can't know.
Therefore... this line of reasoning doesn't lead us anywhere.

In my view, Nature does not teach moral. IMO, In nature phenomena occurs that is it. When you introduce a brain into nature the brain interprets, depending on its ability, the information/phenomena and sums it up to thought/a conclusion.

Sorry, I think you lost me.
Do you think that brains are not a part of nature? What part of a brain is "super-natural"?

Brains are capable of teaching us morals.
Brains are a part of nature.
Therefore, nature is capable of teaching us morals.

In order to get beyond this... you're going to have to show me how a brain is not-natural.

When we discuss "god" we are saying that it created nature and has overall authority of moral which man has tried to get it right without that authority and is terrible in my view at getting it right. You get stuff like racism/hitler/the crusaders, etc.

Have you ever asked what stopped the racism/hitler/crusades and such?
Wasn't it more natural brains from more natural people?

Seems to me that you're picking the bad stuff and calling it "from man" but ignoring the good stuff that is just as much from man.

yenmor writes: Wow, I've been too busy with work to check this thread out that I started. I came in just now and it says it will close soon because the 300 posts limit has been reached.

Oh, don't worry about that.
There used to be a problem with the software on this board that large threads would become corrupt.
The problem is now fixed, but generally it's been discovered that shorter-threads are better focused anyway. So the concept of limiting threads usually continues; as a default they're set to 300 messages. (Then, after 300, you're allowed one final "summation" post).

Even if the message limit is reached, though...there's nothing stopping you from simply starting up another thread, or posting to a similarly-themed one.

Alias writes: Yes I do think if there is a god that god is all powerful and all knowing. I don't agree that evil existing in the world is a good enough reason to believe god does not exist.

Evil existing just means that an all-powerful and all-loving God doesn't exist.

It's rather simple:
Either God isn't powerful enough to stop the evil, or He doesn't love us enough to stop it.

A great example is having your parents move you out of their home at the age of 19 because they want you to grow up, even if you don't have a job.

This is not an example about evil.
Teaching your kid how to grow up isn't evil.
Raping a child is evil.

Do you have an example of loving parents that rape their child? This is what God does, if He is all-powerful and all-loving. Because there are children in this existence that get raped and God created this existence.
Is God not powerful enough to stop child rape?
Does God not love children enough to stop them from getting raped?
What sort of lesson is God teaching "out of love" that involves the rape of a child?

...I owe it to god for existence and granting me freedom. Thus this is why it is important to love god in order for god to love you. This type of relationship should be worthy in gods eyes but it certainly should command respect.

Respect doesn't come from creation.
Parents do not deserve respect from their children because they created them. They only deserve respect from their children if they take care of them.
A parent who does not take care of their child does not deserve any respect at all.
If God is all-powerful and simply refuses to take care of His children and lets them get raped... that means God doesn't deserve any respect at all. This just means God is evil, not loving.

The type of respect that a mentor has on a child, where the child listens to that mentor learning everything that that mentor has to teach.

The mentor is only respected if he is a good mentor.
If the mentor rapes the child... then the mentor is not a good mentor, and does not deserve to be respected.

I'm sorry of all the talk about children being raped. It's just that it does happen in the world, and we are doing the world a very big disservice if we ignore it. Especially when discussing deities and their responsibilities when creating this world. Don't you think that is important?

Seems to me like you're blind...

Very much so.
Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.

Stile writes: Evil existing just means that an all-powerful and all-loving God doesn't exist. Alias writes: This is a mere assertion.

No it's not. Here, I'll show you again:

Alias writes: For example biblical thought is that this existence is a temporary existence and evil will exist up until judgement by the all knowing all powerful loving creator god.

If this is true... either God is not powerful enough to prevent evil in the temporary existence, or God doesn't love us enough to prevent evil in the temporary existence.
Therefore, since evil exists in the temporary existence... an all-powerful and all-loving God does not exist.

It's not very difficult.
Evil exists - children are raped in this world.
An all-powerful God would have the power to prevent children from being raped.
An all-loving God would want to prevent the rape of innocent children.
Therefore, an all-powerful, all-loving God does not exist.

It's a rather simple concept.

It was an example of how there are different forms of love.

I know. That's what was wrong with it. We're not talking about different forms of love. We're talking about evil. Your example was irrelevant to what we're discussing... unless you're trying to say that one of God's "forms of love" is allowing the rape of innocent children. But that doesn't make any sense at all.

Also god should not be held responsible for the things done by humanity. It's not logical.

I agree.
I'm not calling God responsible, I'm calling Him evil.

Let's say you're walking down the road and a rapist sees a child and is about to rape the child.
You understand that the rapist is going to rape the child, and that this will hurt the child in ways that even time cannot undo.
Let's say that all you have to do is think "I wish that child would not get raped..." and the rapist would not rape the child.
But... you refuse to think that, and the child gets raped.

You are not "responsible" but you certainly are evil as you could have easily prevented that child from being raped.

If God is all-powerful, He is capable of stopping children from being raped just from wishing it to be so, right?
If God is all-loving, He would not want innocent children to be raped, right?
But... we live in a world where evil exists and innocent children most certainly are raped.
Therefore... an all-powerful, all-loving God does not exist.

The steps are very simple.

God has not deserted humanity.

If God has the power of preventing the rape of an innocent child merely by wishing it to be so... yet He doesn't... then God does not deserve respect. Because He's evil.

To be honest some of these things I am not 100% sure about hence my belief agnostic theism.

Take your time.
This is a discussion board. Feel free to continue discussing whatever you like as long as you like. I'm not offended or frustrated in any way.

I don't believe in all scripture, just scripture that is right in my eyes.

I'm not very well versed with scripture either. I'm just explaining that an all-powerful, all-loving God is logically impossible when evil such as the rape of innocent children exists. This argument doesn't say I don't believe in God, the argument doesn't stand in the way of God creating mankind. It's only showing that an all-powerful, all-loving God can't possibly exist given the sorts of evil we find here on earth.

I do think that god is real and has communicated to humanity morality but you have to seek in order to find. :-)

The above statement is still perfectly valid for a God that is not all-powerful.
God can even still be all-loving... just not both.
That may be a blow to your "my-Dad-is-bigger-than-your-Dad" idea of an all-powerful, all-loving God... but reality doesn't cater to our egos.

So further out in time evil will eventually not exist, we just have not reached our destination.

Quite possible, I agree.
But... then God is not "all-powerful" as He would be restricted by time.
If God is not powerful enough to prevent all evil at all times... then God is not all-powerful, is He?

Perhaps I have just been confused by the words you chose to use?

It is one thing to say "God is the most powerful being in existence."
It is another thing entirely to say "God is all-powerful."
The two are not necessarily the same thing.

If all you meant to say was "God is the most powerful being in existence..." then I agree that my argument about evil's existence preventing an all-powerful, all-loving God's existence does not apply. It's still a true argument, though. We know a few things:

Innocent children get raped. This is a fact.
Therefore... either God is not powerful enough to stop it, or He doesn't love innocent children enough to stop it.

Because, if God was powerful enough to stop it, and he wanted to stop it... then it would never have happened... He would have stopped it.
Obviously, something is preventing God from stopping the rape of innocent children.

Maybe God values the "freedom of personal choice" of a rapist over His love for innocent children's freedom of personal choice? -This would be an evil God
Maybe God cannot prevent the "personal choice" of some people? -This would be a not-all-powerful God

Alias writes: The only conclusion is not simply if evil exists than a all powerful all knowing loving god does not exist. Again this is a mere assertion.

It's not an assertion. It's a logical incompatibility:

Premise 1 - An all loving God would want to prevent evil
Premise 2 - An all powerful God would be capable of preventing evil
Conclusion - If an all loving, all powerful God exists, then there would be no evil.

Fact of our life: Innocent children are raped. Therefore evil exists. Therefore an all loving, all powerful God does not exist.

This is not an assertion, it is what's called "logical thinking."

Thus the cost of free agency is that god does not interfere with/ or stop evil until judgement day (freedom is a gift of love, it wanted you to live free and not under oppression or as a robot).

This very well may be true.
But then it means one of two things:
1) God is not powerful enough to interfere with free agency - Therefore God is not all powerful.
2) God does not love innocent children enough to prevent the free agency of a rapist - Therefore God is not all loving.

Either way, we have a God who is not all powerful, or not all loving.
Therefore, again, you have shown to us all that an all loving and all powerful God cannot exist.

An example is children getting raped. This happens due to free agency but free agency was a gift of love. Hence why god does not interfere when children get raped.

Free agency cannot be a gift of love if it results in the rape of an innocent child.

I find it incredibly strange that I need to explain that to someone. Perhaps you do not fully understand how wonderful love is? Or maybe you don't really understand how evil rape is?
There is no way to make anything the "results in rape" to be "a gift of love."
If you think that's possible, then you simply do not understand what love is and what rape is. I will try to make it clear again here:

Go back to the example I provided.

There is a rapist about to rape a child.
You understand that this rapist is going to rape the child, and he is going to hurt the child in ways that no amount of time can heal.
The rapist is going to take away the FREE living agency of the child, for the rest of it's life.
You have the power to simply wish that the rapist does not rape the child. This will prevent the rape, and will only take away the FREE living agency of the rapist for about an hour or so.

What do you do?

Do you wish the rapist would stop and take away the FREE living agency of the rapist for about an hour?
Or do you refuse to wish the rapist will stop, and allow the rapist to take away the FREE living agency of the innocent child for the rest of their life?

You decide not to wish the rapist to stop.

...and you call this an "all-loving" gift for the child?
I think you have some explaining to do...

Preventing the rape doesn't create robots. In fact, allowing the rape creates more of a robot... the free agency of the child is removed for the rest of their life. If God stops the rapist, it only removes the free agency of the rapist for about an hour or so. If God (or you) actually believed that free agency is important... you would be on the side of preventing the rapist. Not allowing it. That's just silly. And pretty evil, too.

If you are unable to figure out how allowing the rape of an innocent child is "not an act of love"... I will just hope that you are never left to be responsible of children of any kind, ever. If you become a parent, or if you are a parent... and you think that letting your child get raped will be "an act of love" to preserve your child's free agency... I will personally make sure that the police find your residence and place you behind bars.

So at this time, all of those secular folk are just blind and ignorant perhaps even a bit arrogant.

The secular folk?
It's not the secular folk who are defending the choice of a rapist to rape innocent children and ruin the rest of their lives and calling it an act of God's love.
I usually say this as a joke, but perhaps you need it to be said seriously: Will somebody think of the children??!!

Stile writes: If God has the power of preventing the rape of an innocent child merely by wishing it to be so... yet He doesn't... then God does not deserve respect. Because He's evil. Alias writes: Remember the gift of free agency.... Hence why god does not interfere. God is saving its judgement until judgement day.

This "gift of free agency" may very well be real.
But if it is real... it means that God is not all loving.

If God is okay with allowing the rapist to remove the child's "gift of free agency", but refuses to simply remove the rapist's "gift of free agency" Himself... then God is not all loving. Obviously God respect the rapist's free agency over that of an innocent child. That's not love. That's evil.

And again, even the "gift of FREE living agency" only shows us that God cannot exist as all loving and all powerful.

NosyNed writes: But one view is that we don't have the "big picture". We don't see the totality an the end consequences of things. When we deny a child a cookie his view is that we are very mean and cruel when we are only concerned about his health but having him see that would be very difficult with his limited knowledge and view. How much more limited is our view compared to Tom's. Maybe what you see as "evil" is part of a greater whole that produces the greatest good.

This is the only way out of the problem of evil.

It hinges on a hope that "maybe God is so smart he can see that child rape is a good, loving thing in the long-run."

Of course, any sane person will laugh at this.
It is, however, the only logical way out of the issue. ****

But, as everyone knows, logical doesn't always mean valid.

If you're personally okay with calling child rape an "act of love" because of some vague hope for some unforeseen, unknowable after-death possibility... Then I have a bridge I'd like to sell to you (after I make sure you go to jail)

**** I'm not sure if "logical" is the right word here... probably something closer to "only possible way" would be more correct. "Logical", I think... gives the escape hatch too much credit.

Edited by Stile, : 'cause I wanted to add something.

Edited by Stile, : Screwed up my spelling in my last edit, and now I feel silly 'cause there'll be two edit notifications right beside each other. I don't even like one edit notification in my messages. Ah well... such is the burden I must bear.

Alias writes: We're going in circles.

Of course "we" are not going in circles.
But this does happen to anyone who tries to defend child rape and call it an act of love because we don't understand God's ways.
That's one of the longest rabbit holes known to man, and you've found yourself twisting down it over and over again.

It's okay, really. I don't expect you to read what's here and simply say "well, I never thought about it that way... I'll have to think this over some more." But you will, you'll remember what's been said here and it will stick in your mind and will crop up in your head whenever you think about an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God. You'll remember that there's something just not right about that, you can't put your finger on it because you don't really want to put your finger on it... you like the idea that such an all-everything being is watching over your shoulder.

That, in itself, is a good thing.
It is good to have the feeling of security that only an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God can provide.

It's just that I have problem with anyone trying to defend child rape in any way. I'm a bit fussy like that. It irks me to the point of typing out some words and posting them on a message forum on the internet.

If you'd care to continue the discussion at any time, or discuss anything else... feel free to post at any time.
This message board really is well put together and it's great for tracking discussions. There's lots of other things to talk about as well. We don't always have to chat about difficult topics like child rape.

Hi Alias, glad to see you're not really done. It's an interesting topic (to me, at least) and I'm happy for the chance to talk about it.

You seem to be trying to introduce exceptions for how evil can exist and God can still be all-powerful, all-loving and all-knowing.
The problem is that once anything (God included) is all-powerful, all-loving and all-knowing... then there are no exceptions for how evil can exist.

You first thought maybe God had a plan according to a timeline that we do not understand.
But, if "time" is restricting God, then God is not all-powerful.

You then thought that maybe God is using evil in a loving way... in a way like a parent may teach a child.
But, "evil" cannot be used in a "loving" way. If God is using evil in any way, then God is not all-loving.

You then thought that maybe God is doing things in some mysterious way such that evil exists and God remains all-powerful, all-loving and all-knowing.
But this is the entire question we're trying to answer... If evil does exist, how can an all-powerful, all-loving and all-knowing God also exist?
If the answer is "God works in mysterious ways"... then the answer is equivalent to "I don't know."

I don't have an issue with you believing in an all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing God. That's your personal choice, and I hope you find what you're looking for.

I simply have an issue if you want to claim that you "know" or "understand" that such a God actually exists.
This seems to be impossible as you have no idea how such a God could even possibly exist while evil does exist.

Actually... it's not even really an "issue" I have as it is more a curiosity. You see... if you could actually explain such a concept to me, then I would be able to understand it. It seems to me that it would be a very nice thing to be able to understand. It's just... I'm personally unable to "just believe" in such a concept. It seems like a very important concept, so I need to understand it before I accept it as valid.

Kind of like my mortgage. My mortgage is pretty important to me. Without it my family would not have a place to live. So, I won't "just believe" that some bank will give me some mortgage at whatever rate... I need to understand the rate, and the terms and verify it myself... because it's important.

To me, the concept of a creator-God (if He exists) is much more important than even my mortgage. Therefore, I need to make sure that people's claims about Him are valid before I "just believe" in them.

I'm not trying to trip-you-up, or make you not-believe.
Please don't take offense to this... but I really don't care what you think or believe or understand as I don't really know you.
I do, however, care very much about what I think and believe and understand.

Really, my interest here is very selfish. I'm hoping you can explain this concept to me so that I can add it to my "I understand this about God" area of my brain. That area, currently, is rather empty.

You also seem to compare believers and atheists a lot.
You can call me whatever you wish, again... I don't really care.
I've called myself an atheist, a Catholic, a Christian, a believer... but I've since given up on such labels. They don't really help in my understanding of anything.