What we must accept if we accept evolution Part 2

Try some simple points:1) If evolution entails atheism then it must deny Deism. How is evolution inconsistent with the view that a Deity created the Universe and left it to develop on its own.2) If evolution entails determinism then it must deny Quantum randomness. How does evolution do that ?I think that this is sufficient to refute both points.l

A cruel God is still a God. If you wish to claim otherwise you are the one advocating logical contradiction. So - even if you could justify your point - it is irrelevant. If a God exists - cruel or not - than atheism is false.Chance is the opposite of determinism. The relationship between will and determinism has not been decisvely settled but I agree with the position that will is not incompatible with determinism (and I would go further and say that will must be deterministic).Moreover Quantum randoness may well be genuinely random - it is not the case that it must be pseudo-random or chaotic like a roulette wheel. But if your claim to the contrary were true then you would be asserting determinism. Thus your point cannot possibly help your argument.n

If you want to claim a logical contradiction then you do need to deal with formal logic. If you can't show a contradiction that way then you don't have a logical contradiction.'

The OP didn't. But you did claim logical contradictions in the original thread. Am I to take it that you retract this assertion ?

Yes. I have already answered the determinism claim.Further as I pointed out in the original thread evolution does not propose any cruelties that are not observed in the world. If these do not justify the inference of an evil creator, evolution does not make it any worse.i

But then you are arguing that OEC proposes a "cruel God". In short it is not just evolution you have to reject but the fact that the fossil evidence shows a long history of death and predation, going back hundreds of millions of years before humanity existed.Thus, even if YEC did have a good answer (which I certainly do not accept) evolution is not the real issue here.c

No, you haven't shown that atheism or an evil God follow from evolution. As I have pointed out the conclusion of an evil God depend on other issues that apply even if evolution is rejected. Moreover you have not even considered other possibilities, such as the idea that a God so far above us as to be capable of creating this universe might be indifferent to what happens to life on this planet. Or that there might be some justiifcation for the apparent evil (unlikely in my view but unfortunately it is a valid objection if you are claiming a logical proof)..

No, deteminism against free will need not matter. If they are not in contradiction as I believe then there can be no conflict. In short you can have no case unless you can settle a fairly major conflict in philosophy - and settle it in your favour.Even if they are in conflict it still does not follow that free will requires an incorporeal mind. Moreover you have yet to produce a valid argument that evolution contradicts the idea of an incorporeal mind. If your argument that evolution logically entails determinism is dependant on your argment that evolution entails materialism then you need to establish that argument first. A

Really if you want to claim that you have a proof you need to actually address the rebuttals raised properly instead of simply trying to dismiss them with excuses.

quote:

---

As I have pointed out the conclusion of an evil God depend on other issues tha t apply even if evolution is rejected.

That would be outside the boundaries of this discussion. We aren't talking about rejecting evolution. We are talking about what logically follows from accepting it.

---

If we are talking about what logically follows from evolution then showing that the argument is actually based on accepting something other than evolution is a valid point. As I have pointed out - and you have not disputed - this is the case, Indeed you have conceded that exactly the same point applies to OEC. Therefore your argument is refuted.

quote:

---

Moreover you have not even considered other possibilities, such as the idea that a God so far above us as to be capable of creating this universe might be indifferent to what happens to life on this planet.

But that is not another possibility; it is included in the idea of an evil God. He doesn't care about all the suffering and bloodshed he created.

---

But indifference to entities beneath His notice is not evil. It is not even necessarily the case that this God has directly created the suffering and bloodshed you complain of. And if responsibility must be placed on a God in that situation rather than on those who actually inflict the suffering and bloodshed, then the Christian God is also in trouble - having a far more direct link to both than the hypothetical God you call evil. How can you hold a hypothetical God who did not even directly create humans responsible for human actions while not holding your God - who supposedly did create humans - equally responsible ?

quote:

---

Or that there might be some justiifcation for the apparent evil (unlikely in my view but unfortunately it is a va lid objection if you are claiming a logical proof)..

​

I see no problem here. Evil has been defined as creating living things that suffer and die. The point is logically consistent.

---

"Logically consistent" simply means that it is not self-contradictory. That is a very long way short of a proof. To have a logical proof you must rule out even possibilities you find implausible. (And I note that this is simply a version of a ommon Christian Theodicy - the "Unknown Purpose defence")-This message has been edited by PaulK, 01-31-2006 04:35 AM

Well lets look at your "argument"

quote:

---

I already did. Consciousness evolved. If it evolved, it had to evolve
from the physical--that's all there was to evolve from. So consciousness is physical too. The physical can only produce more physical things. The incorporeal is not natural.

---

When you say that "the physical is all there was to evolve from" you are implicitly assuming the truth of materialsm. Thus your argument begs the question.If you accept that the immaterial may exist and be capable of interacting with the physical - and to reject either is to reject Substance Dualism and thus beg the question - then it follows that it may be a part of evolution. Even though such a view would go beyond science it is consistent with evolution and thus serves as a counter example to any argument you might produce.Let us note that I raised this point in the original thread. If you are going to accuse others of emotionally clinging to beleifs then you should at least be prepared to recognise when your own arguments have been shown to be grossly inadequate and cease to use them.n

But the Fall is not an improvement.That it happened at all is a black mark on a suppsoedly "all-powerful" God's record.That it should have the effects attributed to it suggests a God who was either grossly incompetent - creating a universe which had a major and completely unnecessary flaw - or a malicious God who intended the universe to change in this way. Or a less than all-poweful God who somehow was unable to avoid a very strange flaw.(And need I point out the oddity of a God who does not want animals to die but also demands animal sacrifices because He enjoys the smell of cooking meat ?)y

So the YECs insist that there is a logical contradiction that they cannot demonstrate. In short they don't have a real answer - only faith that there is.And if we can't discuss the Biblical idea of the Fall or the Bible-based YEC view without talking about the God of the Bible - that IS the God directly associated with each.u

It isn't just unsupported, it is refuted. Evolution depends on these things - but they are already there. Denying evolution won't make them go away, it just makes them worse by removing a positive aspect.u

quote:

---

Well, the Logic Challenged are hulking their way to victory by trampling down all the delicate operations of reason asusual. THAT's the way debates are won at EvC.

---

That is exactly what your post quoted above is doing. Rather than deal with the points presented you just make false accusations.Unfortunately for you are wrong to claim that your tactics win..

Polytheistic religions have included weak and cruel Gods. so the concepts hold water at least to the extent that they are not obviously false.But I must remind you that you invoked YEC beliefs in place of philosphical arguments. Then you say that I should not talk about the YEC God and instead must deal with philosophy. Effectively you are indulging in equivocation.I would add that if you remve "negligent God" as an option you are really down to affirming atheism independantly of the truth of evolution. Which again amounts to question-begging.So to reiterate:The actual evidence shows that death and sufering long preceded the arrival of huans. Without rejecting that evidence in favour of YEC beliefs the Fall is hardly a plausible option.YEC beliefs include animals undergoing death and suffering - both from the Fall, the Flood and the animal sacrifices commanded by God, for no fault of their own. Even on a purely philosphical level the first is necessarily true since the whole point of invoking the Fall is to explain animal suffering and death.Yet the idea that a small human act of disobedience could radically change the whole universe is highly implausible unless the universe were made to be dependant on that particular human action.Was God unable to create a universe without this problem, this vulnerable point ? If so then you are invoking a "weak God", which you reject.Did God intentionally include this flaw, knowing that it could - and probably would - inflict suffering and death on animals who had no part in the event ? Then we have the "cruel God" that you reject.We are left than with a God who somehow included this flaw by accident, not realising the likely effects. This is an incompetent and negligent God - is that any better thna a "cruel God" or a "weak God" ?Yet if the Fall is not a viable option either your argument is wrong or we are left with the conclusion of atheism simply from the observed suffering and death in the present day. In which case evolution is an irrelevance.-