Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What we must accept if we accept evolution Part 2
Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 301 (282747)
01-31-2006 12:01 AM


The ToE and Gods
An omnipotent, omniscient god creates a perfect (good, as opposed to evil) universe. In this universe, it creates (supernatural) beings, who have free will. These beings somehow corrupt the universe, and introduce evil. Eventually, biological mutation and natural selection are seen in this universe.
What's wrong with the above? Does the ToE not allow for an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent creator?
ABE: Actually, I believe that it doesn't, and that the above is logically inconsistent. But the problems it suffers are the same that afflict certain interpretations of the Bible, so I don't think that Faith will come to the same conclusion as I do.
This message has been edited by Funkaloyd, Tue, 31-Jan-2006 05:07 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 12:23 AM Funkaloyd has replied

Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 301 (282757)
01-31-2006 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Faith
01-31-2006 12:23 AM


Re: The ToE and Gods
Faith writes:
God ... created everything good and life-enhancing and treats even those who rebelled against him with mercy and protection
In your view, that is what actually happened, correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 12:23 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 12:41 AM Funkaloyd has replied

Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 301 (282766)
01-31-2006 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
01-31-2006 12:41 AM


Re: The ToE and Gods
Then you're arguing with yourself! You believe that suffering is evil, you accept that suffering happens, you believe that a righteous god wouldn't create a universe full of suffering, yet you believe that such a god did create the Universe. You don't believe that the actions of a third party with free will (i.e. the supernatural beings I mentioned) can excuse the creator, so The Fall is no explanation.
Where am I going wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 12:41 AM Faith has not replied

Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 301 (282783)
01-31-2006 4:04 AM


To move on...
So, we've pretty much established that the Theory of Evolution doesn't demand atheism, an evil creator, a weak creator, or anything of the sort; that is, unless we hold the concept of a "Fall" to be illogical (but we don't, do we?). The ToE and Faith's interpretation of the Bible are mutually exclusive, but we all knew that. On the other hand, Jar's interpretation doesn't rule out evolution. Which interpretation is correct is another topic altogether.
Since the ToE allows for all kinds of gods, it clearly doesn't demand either materialism or nihilism.
Now for determinism:
"We evolved from simple organisms over billions of years, we share a common ancestor with amoebas and sheep, but the omnipotent creator has decided to endow all Homo sapiens with souls upon conception."
What's illogical with that? Maybe I'm missing something; it's easy to do that when you're playing Devil's advocate.

Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 301 (282979)
01-31-2006 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Faith
01-31-2006 10:02 AM


Is the concept of a "Fall" not a viable excuse?
Faith writes:
Death and suffering came with sin. That's not God's doing.
Death, suffering, mutation and natural selection (which you have previously accepted as real), right? Then why on Earth couldn't evolution have come with sin?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 10:02 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 8:35 PM Funkaloyd has replied

Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 301 (283029)
02-01-2006 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Faith
01-31-2006 8:35 PM


Re: Is the concept of a "Fall" not a viable excuse?
Faith writes:
I know there are other beliefs. But this one is incompatible with evolution
Ok, but can we agree that a god doesn't have to be evil, a "godlet" (heh), or nonexistent to be compatible with evolution; that an omnipotent and benevolent god could have created the Universe in the evolution scenario, if we allow for a Fall-like situation to have happened?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 8:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 02-01-2006 12:18 AM Funkaloyd has replied

Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 301 (283043)
02-01-2006 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Faith
02-01-2006 12:18 AM


Re: Is the concept of a "Fall" not a viable excuse?
An example of how it's possible was given back in Message 64
As far as I can see, all you've showed is that a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account is incompatible with evolution. Not many would dispute that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 02-01-2006 12:18 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 02-01-2006 8:05 AM Funkaloyd has replied
 Message 181 by Jazzns, posted 02-01-2006 9:58 AM Funkaloyd has replied

Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 301 (283064)
02-01-2006 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by robinrohan
02-01-2006 5:50 AM


Re: robinrohan once again makes unsupported assertions.
robinrohan writes:
you can't believe in the Fall and evolution at the same time.
But you can believe in something very similar to the Fall, right? I.e. free will introducing suffering into the Universe, against the creator's wishes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by robinrohan, posted 02-01-2006 5:50 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by robinrohan, posted 02-01-2006 10:49 AM Funkaloyd has not replied

Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 301 (283094)
02-01-2006 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Faith
02-01-2006 8:05 AM


Re: Is the concept of a "Fall" not a viable excuse?
Faith writes:
I couldn't follow your scenario in the linked message. It makes no sense to me. You'll have to explain better.
Though I disagree with almost everything you write, I must admit, I admire your ability to get your points across so clearly. I struggle with doing that; you'd think that English wasn't my first language.
That scenario was designed to make the point that if The Fall can be an excuse for creationists, it can be an excuse for theistic evolutionists, too. Though in an evolutionary scenario humans couldn't have introduced suffering into the world through sin (they weren't around before suffering), a supernatural entity”let's say an angel”could have. The idea is, imho, silly and extremely unlikely, but it is also logical. It could have happened, and that Infinitesimal possibility is enough to refute the idea that a loving god and the ToE are incompatible.
I get the feeling that I'm not being any clearer. Sorry about that =)
Darwinism was a major influence in the overall rejection of God in the West, the atheism that is so common now. It's really academic at best to include all these other conceptions of God in this discussion.
I completely agree with both sentences, but I think that those other conceptions can demonstrate that evolution doesn't necessitate atheism or certain kinds of gods. Though, it does demand a rejection of what you call "traditional Christianity".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 02-01-2006 8:05 AM Faith has not replied

Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 301 (283284)
02-01-2006 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Jazzns
02-01-2006 9:58 AM


Re: Is the concept of a "Fall" not a viable excuse?
Jazzns writes:
A literal interpretation of Genesis does not necessarily lead to concepts such as The Fall (at least the way YECs describe it) or no death before sin. These are ad-hoc reasonings that that only YECs add on to a literal interpretation of Genesis.
I normally see literalism as a synonym of creationism and fundamentalism, but you're right. The same goes for the identification of the serpent as Satan; it doesn't follow from a literal reading, but is instead added on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Jazzns, posted 02-01-2006 9:58 AM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 02-04-2006 2:05 PM Funkaloyd has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024