Debunking evolutionist circular argument #647

[Resha Caner]

It is fiction - a fact-challenged-religion ...

That's not an answer. If I were asked, "What is pantheism?" my answer would be: a belief that the universe is identical with divinity. Or, "What is gnosticism?" My answer: A belief that the material world is in some way a mistake that must be escaped through secret knowledge.

Do you see? I don't agree with any of those beliefs, but I can describe what they are - describe them in neutral terms true to what people espousing those positions actually believe rather than launching into denigration and pontification. I'm not sure what you think you're accomplishing.

I'm going to move on now.

 

[Gottservant]

Technically, I don't think you can read conclusively into an argument wordily-"debunk(ed)"ily (scientifically____).

At least, without proving ____ your word is slightly more coherent ____ ____ than just philosophy ____ ____ ____ ____.

 

[rcorlew]

Circular arguments, aren't they trite? Look here we found a few bones and because evolution is true they must fit here. Now look, we know evolution must be true because look here, we now have some bones that belong to a transitional form.

I know my theory must be true so here is how it must work, and because I can define the mechanism I know my theory mist be true.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The idea that science or theories like evolution must be opposed to God is flawed - no matter who is taking that position, Christian or atheist.

The atheist relying on evolution as a means to dispute the existence of God is placing too much blind faith on the theory and also failing to admit that theory would not even apply to a Being Who is said to be outside the space/time of this universe. There is no logic in asking Who created such a Being. If they mistakenly think God is part of this universe, then they fail to recognize what most orthodox Christians believe about the Nature of God.

Similarly a Christian who imagines evolution incapable of explaining why we look the way we do without somehow magically diminishing or abolishing the need for God's hand in our existence is putting too much blind faith that the theory/science must be wrong in order for there to be such a God.

This is not an either or argument and I think both sides overstate their position/conclusions when it comes to God. There is ample evidence that things do indeed evolve as a natural process and no reason to suggest God could not use such a natural process to account for the order of things we can observe. Conversely that natural process does not explain everything we can observe and the evidence supporting is both incomplete and occasionally contrary. The existence of moral goodness, which can have only One external source, for example cannot be explained by that natural process - survival of the fittest is morally neutral at best and often immoral or at least not something we would call a good thing.

 

[BobRyan]

evolutionism is by definition 'the religion of atheism' -- just as God is by definition "eternal and not created".

The whole point of blind faith evolutionism - is materialism. Evolutionism has never confined itself to changes limited to the "kinds" of Genesis 1 - rather blind faith evolutionism dies if the salient point in its argument is false and so for example - bacteria cannot turn into amoeba -- if prokayrotes cannot "evolve" into single celled eukaryote animals such as amoeba.

 

[mark kennedy]

It is a popular retort of some evolutionist to argue that one cannot logically claim that God made the universe without first explaining who made God.

God is the Eternal One, without beginning or end. The Primary Mover and thus the ultimate First Cause. The naturalistic assumptions of evolutionists is the culprit here, not the logic of Christian theism.

That is a circular argument because it "assumes" the salient point of evolutionism's "materialism" rather than proving it to be fact.

The A priori assumption of materialists is pagan in it orientation. The elementals were the first cause of the Mediterranean world. God created the universe and all that is in it, with the pagan world the fist cause was alway earth, air, fire or water. Nothing new under the sun.

That circular argument may be illustrated this way.

==================================================

I say "Hey look a bird came by and picked up my sandwich and put it in that tree"

To which the atheist evolutionist responds 'you cannot make that claim until you tell us who picked the bird up so the bird could put the sandwich in the tree'.

To which I respond "nobody picked the bird up --- it is the nature of birds by definition - that they fly'.

To which the evolutionist responds "In my world everything is a sandwich and by that definition cannot fly - so tell us who/what picked the bird up or else you cannot claim that the bird picked your sandwich up".

The back up problem is one of the biggest problems with circular logic.

But it is that "everything is sandwich" presupposition that is in error and has to be tossed out - when evaluating my claim. You cannot evaluate another person's world-view by inserting your own world-view into it.

When the Dawkins-evolutionist says "in the beginning there was a single viable eukaryote, or prokaryote, or big bang" you cannot then say to them "And then what did God say?" -- because that would be inserting the Christian world view - into theirs.

Hence: "By definition" God has no beginning and matter does.

The whole problem with a single cell being the first ancestor comes down to a simple fact. DNA has multiple mechanisms to preserve the information and none to rewrite it.

Both sides know about the second part of that statement and also the first
=================================================

Another circular argument of evolutionists - debunked.

I tend to agree but this approach is about as challenging as fish in a bucket.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Radrook]

The irrelevancy of the question: "Who created the creator?" is the issue and not evolution.

 

[mark kennedy]

It is a popular retort of some evolutionist to argue that one cannot logically claim that God made the universe without first explaining who made God.

That is a circular argument because it "assumes" the salient point of evolutionism's "materialism" rather than proving it to be fact.

That circular argument may be illustrated this way.

When dealing with a circular argument you must first establish the premise, this one goes to natural revelation. There are things that are self-evident, including God's divine attributes and eternal nature:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Rom. 1:18-20)​

The only way to deal with this kind of aimless logic is to demand definitions. If you notice evolutionists don't like to define things, on rare occasions I can get them to agree on an actual definition to 'evolution' but you have to drag it out of them. When you can make words mean whatever you want its all too easy to run the conversation in circles. When you put the Scriptures out there it reminds them that they already know God's nature is eternal, it's called primary source and unmoved mover. They have no real argument for that one.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Hoghead1]

When dealing with a circular argument you must first establish the premise, this one goes to natural revelation. There are things that are self-evident, including God's divine attributes and eternal nature:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Rom. 1:18-20)​

The only way to deal with this kind of aimless logic is to demand definitions. If you notice evolutionists don't like to define things, on rare occasions I can get them to agree on an actual definition to 'evolution' but you have to drag it out of them. When you can make words mean whatever you want its all too easy to run the conversation in circles. When you put the Scriptures out there it reminds them that they already know God's nature is eternal, it's called primary source and unmoved mover. They have no real argument for that one.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Grace and peace,
Mark[/Q
The traditional or classical Christian model or picture of God as he is in his won nature does in fact describe god as the Unmoved Mover. God is said to be void of body, parts,passions, compassion, wholly immutable. However, this picture of God comes largely from Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture. Hellenic philosophy enshrined the immune and the immutable, hence, Aristotle's definition of God as the Unmoved Mover, which the early church baptized Christian. It very much conflicts with Scripture, because the latter provides a highly anthropomorphic image of God as one who can experience deep emotion and can change, as we fine in about 100 passages, such as Gen. 6:6, Hosea 11:9. In recent years, especially the end of WW2, many theologians, including myself, have been critical of this classical model of God, as it presents a largely insensitive, unresponsive God. If nothing can make any real difference in God, then saint or sinner, it is all the same to God, who remains blissfully indifferent. Hence, there is now a neo-classical model of God, in which God is viewed as a synthesis of both consistency and change, analogous to any truly living personality.
Also, I don't know where you get this idea that scientists won't give you a clear definition of evolution. I just wonder how much science you have actually read, as well as theology, for that matter.

 

[mark kennedy]

The traditional or classical Christian model or picture of God as he is in his won nature does in fact describe god as the Unmoved Mover. God is said to be void of body, parts,passions, compassion, wholly immutable. However, this picture of God comes largely from Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture. Hellenic philosophy enshrined the immune and the immutable, hence, Aristotle's definition of God as the Unmoved Mover, which the early church baptized Christian. It very much conflicts with Scripture, because the latter provides a highly anthropomorphic image of God as one who can experience deep emotion and can change, as we fine in about 100 passages, such as Gen. 6:6, Hosea 11:9. In recent years, especially the end of WW2, many theologians, including myself, have been critical of this classical model of God, as it presents a largely insensitive, unresponsive God. If nothing can make any real difference in God, then saint or sinner, it is all the same to God, who remains blissfully indifferent. Hence, there is now a neo-classical model of God, in which God is viewed as a synthesis of both consistency and change, analogous to any truly living personality.
Also, I don't know where you get this idea that scientists won't give you a clear definition of evolution. I just wonder how much science you have actually read, as well as theology, for that matter.

I've read enough scientific literature and my fair share of theology. I have long wondered how the evolutionist finds himself so much better enlightened simply because of naturalistic assumptions. Let's see about you sampling of the proof texts you claims undermines the immutability of God:

The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. (NIV Gen. 6:6)
​

God was grieved by their sin, God being eternally righteous and holy grieves sin in the world. The term translated 'repented' in the KJV and 'regretted' in the NIV is (H5162 נָחַם nacham), it can also be translated comforted in other contexts Gen. 5:29; 24:57 for instance. You see another aspect of this in God's undying love for Israel in spite of the fact that Israel has been immersed in sin. God promises that Israel will be restored which is highly consistent among the eighth century prophets like Amos:

How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together. I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city. (Amos 8-9)
​

Where anyone gets an argument against the immutability of God in this passage is a mystery to me. Quite the opposite. The passage is saying God is having a change of heart toward Israel, when Israel repents of their sin God will turn away His anger and wrath. This doesn't undermine immutability, God's love endures forever.

These post WWII rationalizations belong to the long list of failed revisions of traditional Christian theism:

This attribute is that which enables us to depend on God to be God. It is why we can be certain that every excellency, every perfection, indeed every promise of God is utterly inviolable. He shall not be moved. Jonathan Edwards wisely pointed out that this is one of the reasons the heathen hate him so much. They have other potent enemies. But those enemies can grow weak. They have other angry enemies, but they can be calmed. They have other knowing enemies, but they can be fooled. The God of heaven and earth, on the other hand, will never cease to be all-powerful. His wrath will never turn from sin. And His eyes will never grow dim. (The Importance of God’s Immutability, RC Sproul jr.)​

Your still trying to push this Open Theism in Christians Only forums and you need to take it to a more appropriate forum.

Have a nice day
Mark