|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What evidence absolutely rules out a Creator | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
The point is that the other proofs of evolution do not eliminate God.
The fossils don't rule out God either. There are lots of theistic and deistic evolutionists who would agree with me on this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I am responding to the question in the title line.
No evidence could absolutely rule out a creator. The question could be changed to "What evidence would persuade you that there is/was no creator." We would all have to answer that for ourselves, and would surely disagree. Here is the problem: Suppose you find evidence that you believe absolutely rules out a creator. Then you have to ask whether the creator could have created that evidence to conceal himself. The difficulty with evidence, is that we are part of the natural world, and are limited to evidence that is part of this world. If the creator is outside the natural world, then any internal evidence would be insufficient to settle the issue. At least that is how I see it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
You are able to imagine a completely irrational Creator who is capable of deceit and trickery.
I don't see a need for that. The deist's god, a creator who set the universe in motion, then stepped back to watch, would seem immune to any possibility of evidence that could absolutely rule out his existence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Yes I know there is this argument that free will was some kind of imperfection. I can't see it that way. Free will is necessary to created perfection. Creating beings who were unable to rebel would be my idea of imperfection.
If God can only act perfectly, then God has no free will. A God unable to act imperfectly lacks free will. If free will is a necessary part of perfection, then a God without free will cannot be perfect. It seems that this whole idea of a perfect God is self-contradictory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
The God of Genesis seems to have been not much more than a person with eternal life. Thus the "worry" that eating the forbidden fruit would make Adam and Eve into Gods.
However, God seems to have evolved over time, with ever more attributes added - omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, goodness, loving, and now perfection. God may have been evolved into something that cannot exist, something incoherent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes:
You thus take a small part of that Wiki article, and present it out of context. How postmodernist of you
From Wikipedia, some definitions of Postmodernism that I'd say characterize the dominant mentality at EvC:
Postmodernism - Wikipedia "A constitutional inability to adopt a reasonable way to tell the good stuff from the bad stuff" -Chip Morningstar ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Read the whole article. I felt like quoting almost all of it, merely chose the pithiest statements.
I certainly recommend that people read the whole article, and then see for themselves whether you used those "pithiest statements" out of context.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Phat writes:
"Postmodernism" means whatever you want it to mean. Maybe that's already a postmodernist principle.
I used to think that I knew what Postmodernism mean't, but I am afloat in a sea of words and ideas! Relativism is discussed here also.
As I sometimes like to say, show me an absolutist and I will show you a relativist who absolutely wants to impose his relative views on everybody else. Too much of the literature on relativism gets tied in knots with the alleged proof that relativism is self-refuting. I did find Laudan's book "Science and Relativism: Some Key Controversies in the Philosophy of Science" to be useful.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
robinrohan writes:
Then it is high time that you re-examined your understanding of reason and of morality.
If God does not exist, our reason and sense of right and wrong are suspect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
He has ascertained LOGICALLY that evolution and Bible believing Christianity are mutually contradictory.
No, he has not. Robin has frequently asserted that logic shows they are mutually contradictory. However, when challenged, he has failed to produce the logical arguments that would show this.
My own argument focuses on the literal reading of Genesis 1-11 of course, and there's no way to reconcile that with evolution.
There is also no way to reconcile it with physics, with geology, or with ordinary common sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
buzsaw writes:
Even if you allow for the possibility of supernatural events, a literalist reading of the Genesis account cannot be reconciled with physics or with common sense.
But we believe ordinary common sense should allow for a supernatural ID creator to do supernatural stuff, not being limited to the perameters of physics as finite and fallible humans understand their limited (abe: physics concepts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
robinrohan writes:
That is your indictment of God. When we look at how life has evolved, we note that in order for some creatures to survive, they have to kill and eat other creatures. This does not seem very nice. One might say that what happens to animals doesn't matter, but pain is pain no matter what sort of creature feels it. On the assumption that some animals do feel physical pain just as we do, then harm has been done to such animals as have been killed by others. These animals have been tortured and murdered. But the animals who have performed these acts are not reponsible for their actions because they do not, we assume, understand our traditional morality. The responsibility for their actions rest not with the animals but with He who made them. Evolution does not appear to be involved in this indictment. It is not evolution that persuades you to rule out a creator. Rather, it is your observation as to the way the world is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
robinrohan writes:
There is no biblical basis for the Fall. In any case, the fall would only give God an excuse. Your indictment would still stand. Evolution rules out the Fall. It also rules out the necessity of special creation. Evolution does not rule out that God created everything, including evolution as a system to generate biological diversity. This message has been edited by nwr, 03-18-2006 01:37 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024