Evolution Promotes Brutality

[AV1611VET]

But chose not to.

Correct.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Evolution has nothing to do with whether god exists or not.

I agree with you 100% but....atheists have a tendency to make it the central argument turning it into a philosophical argument. Not here, but in one forum in the space of one month, atheists said that God does not exist 173 times. Now, whatever you believe, it is not something that is shared by many other atheists. I guess it is the fallback position when you can't mount a rational arguement for your dogma.

 

[46AND2]

I agree with you 100% but....atheists have a tendency to make it the central argument turning it into a philosophical argument. Not here, but in one forum in the space of one month, atheists said that God does not exist 173 times. Now, whatever you believe, it is not something that is shared by many other atheists. I guess it is the fallback position when you can't mount a rational arguement for your dogma.

I find it is typically Christians (specifically, creationists) who bring up the topic of God when discussing evolution.

 

[46AND2]

Correct.

Hypothetically, would you say that a particular universe would have to be either with sin, or without sin? Is that a solid dichotomy, in your opinion?

 

[tiglathpileser]

If God is the omnipotent creator, then he is necessarily responsible for it all. Including evil, brutality, whatever.

If he created Satan and human, knowing what they WOULD do, then he brought sin into the world, simply by choosing not to create a world in which that doesn't happen.

It has always boggled my mind that the proponents of an omnipotent, omniscient, creator, cannot see this, and insist on asserting that humans are culpable for doing exactly what God intended them to do.

If you don't understand God or his creation, then I guess that is how you would think so you are saying nothing more than is to be expected. When your worldview is that God does not exist, your ideology is obviously going to be influenced by this otherwise there is no point in believing that God does not exist.

If I may I will explain what the truth is from a God does exist perspective. it would have been very easy and less confronting if God created mankind and then said to them "You are going to do whatever I tell you to do. You have no free will to make any decision because I do not want you to screw up what I have created. It is my way or no way."

Because God is all seeing, he did know what was going to happen, but he chose not to intervene and turn mankind into robots. The fact is, only robots like being robots for the simple reason that they are robots, not people. I have yet to meet anyone who would rather be a robot than a free spirited human.

When mankind started going astray he decided not to intervene preferring to allow mankind to exercise his free will. I am sure you appreciate that because is that was not the case, you would not be an atheist. It was man's choice to sin and God chose not to stop him. The nature of free will.

The fact of free will does not imply that God intended them to do what they did. He gave them a choice and refused to intervene in that choice. We cannot fully understand the reasoning behind all this because we have a finite mind and when dealing with God we are dealing with the infinite. Trying to understand the infinite with the finite is a waste of time because we will always come to the wrong conclusion.

That is why salvation is so wonderful for the believer because the Holy Spirit said he would lead us into all truth so that means we are not dependant on the finite to understand the infinite.

 

[tiglathpileser]

I find it is typically Christians (specifically, creationists) who bring up the topic of God when discussing evolution.

And I find it typically that atheists and evolutionists who bring up the existence of God when discussing evolution.

 

[46AND2]

If you don't understand God or his creation, then I guess that is how you would think so you are saying nothing more than is to be expected. When your worldview is that God does not exist, your ideology is obviously going to be influenced by this otherwise there is no point in believing that God does not exist.

If I may I will explain what the truth is from a God does exist perspective. it would have been very easy and less confronting if God created mankind and then said to them "You are going to do whatever I tell you to do. You have no free will to make any decision because I do not want you to screw up what I have created. It is my way or no way."

Because God is all seeing, he did know what was going to happen, but he chose not to intervene and turn mankind into robots. The fact is, only robots like being robots for the simple reason that they are robots, not people. I have yet to meet anyone who would rather be a robot than a free spirited human.

When mankind started going astray he decided not to intervene preferring to allow mankind to exercise his free will. I am sure you appreciate that because is that was not the case, you would not be an atheist. It was man's choice to sin and God chose not to stop him. The nature of free will.

The fact of free will does not imply that God intended them to do what they did. he gave them a choice and refused to intervene in that choice.

"Because God is all seeing, he did know what was going to happen, but he chose not to intervene and turn mankind into robots."

What you don't understand is that an omniscient, omnipotent creator, based on the interactions of those attributes, would not be able to refrain from intervening; it's INHERENT in his creation. If he chose, out of infinite options, to create a universe in which I would not believe, then he intervened, UPON CREATION OF this universe.

 

[46AND2]

And I find it typically that atheists and evolutionists who bring up the existence of God when discussing evolution.

And yet, the very thread you are posting in is by a Christian who brought up the topic of God and evolution, in the very first post.

 

[tiglathpileser]

No. It's a hypothetical. IF a god is described with the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and the creator of the universe, then such a god is responsible for the outcome of that universe. The good and the bad.

I understand that it is a hypothetical if you are arguing from a God does not exist mind set, but you have to realise that your mindset is not necessarily that of the majority on this forum. In fact it is not the mindset of the majority of people on the planet as those who believe God exist outnumber the atheist viewpoint by vast numbers. Atheists are a very small minority if you add up all those in the world that are not atheists.

That being the case there is nothing hypothetical about God existing or not existing and of you believe that God does not exist he is not responsible for anything that happens and that is a fact. In fact, arguing from a hypothetical point of view is a bit of a waste of time as you are arguing from a non event perspective.

 

[tiglathpileser]

"Because God is all seeing, he did know what was going to happen, but he chose not to intervene and turn mankind into robots."

What you don't understand is that an omniscient, omnipotent creator, based on the interactions of those attributes, would not be able to refrain from intervening; it's INHERENT in his creation. If he chose, out of infinite options, to create a universe in which I would not believe, then he intervened, UPON CREATION OF this universe.

What you don't understand is that you cannot understand God with a finite mind which you have if you reject God and his salvation. Even as a believer I cannot understand God with my finite mind. Because I am who I am I like to think I know God and can work him out but I can't without the help of the Holy Spirit. That means there isn't much hope for you to understand using a finite mind that is an enemy of God.

The choice to intervene or not intervene is God's and God's alone as he can see everything from A to Z. We cannot do that so to try and understand a few years in the light of eternity is foolhardy. Whilst it may be a problem to you what God does or does not do, for the believer who studies the word of God in depth there is much more to it than meets the eye. I am focused on the whole picture not just one aspect of it.

Expecting God to do what we want him to do is not wise as we are not much good at anything we do. We only have to look at the mess we have made of the world to know this.

One final question. Would you appreciate not being allowed to be an atheist?

 

[tiglathpileser]

And yet, the very thread you are posting in is by a Christian who brought up the topic of God and evolution, in the very first post.

Bringing up God and evolution is not the same as saying that God does not exist.

 

[46AND2]

I understand that it is a hypothetical if you are arguing from a God does not exist mind set, but you have to realise that your mindset is not necessarily that of the majority on this forum. In fact it is not the mindset of the majority of people on the planet as those who believe God exist outnumber the atheist viewpoint by vast numbers. Atheists are a very small minority if you add up all those in the world that are not atheists.

That being the case there is nothing hypothetical about God existing or not existing and of you believe that God does not exist he is not responsible for anything that happens and that is a fact. In fact, arguing from a hypothetical point of view is a bit of a waste of time as you are arguing from a non event perspective.

I don't have to believe a hypothetical in order for it to be useful. Hypothetical situations are SUPPOSED to be a fictitious description, which elicits contemplation about a key point.

 

[46AND2]

What you don't understand is that you cannot understand God with a finite mind which you have if you reject God and his salvation. Even as a believer I cannot understand God with my finite mind. Because I am who I am I like to think I know God and can work him out but I can't without the help of the Holy Spirit. That means there isn't much hope for you to understand using a finite mind that is an enemy of God.

The choice to intervene or not intervene is God's and God's alone as he can see everything from A to Z. We cannot do that so to try and understand a few years in the light of eternity is foolhardy. Whilst it may be a problem to you what God does or does not do, for the believer who studies the word of God in depth there is much more to it than meets the eye. I am focused on the whole picture not just one aspect of it.

Expecting God to do what we want him to do is not wise as we are not much good at anything we do. We only have to look at the mess we have made of the world to know this.

One final question. Would you appreciate not being allowed to be an atheist?

My illustration was to show that a god with the attributes you have given him doesn't make sense. It creates paradoxes. If you can get passed that...well, lucky for you.

Would I appreciate not being allowed to be an atheist? Depends on what you mean by that. I'll start with what I figure you're getting at....If God is in fact real, then absolutely I would appreciate it if he made himself absolutely visible to everyone.

If it was human bigotry and government sanctioned that atheism is illegal, then, no, I would not appreciate it.

 

[46AND2]

Bringing up God and evolution is not the same as saying that God does not exist.

Where did I say it was?

 

[tiglathpileser]

My illustration was to show that a god with the attributes you have given him doesn't make sense. It creates paradoxes. If you can get passed that...well, lucky for you.

Would I appreciate not being allowed to be an atheist? Depends on what you mean by that. I'll start with what I figure you're getting at....If God is in fact real, then absolutely I would appreciate it if he made himself absolutely visible to everyone.

If it was human bigotry and government sanctioned that atheism is illegal, then, no, I would not appreciate it.

Yes that is all it is. It was an illustration nothing more and one could invent all sorts of illustrations to try and prove a point but the fact is a God who does not exist cannot do anything no matter how many hypothesis you bring up.

Saying "depending on what you mean by that" is so disingenuous as you know very well what I mean. if you don't you're not a very intelligent atheist. if that upsets you better report me to the moderators. All that will show is that you can't handle the truth.

 

[tiglathpileser]

I don't have to believe a hypothetical in order for it to be useful. Hypothetical situations are SUPPOSED to be a fictitious description, which elicits contemplation about a key point.

That may be the case but I have a very distinct feeling that your hypothetical is being used to throw a spanner in the works. That being the case I would rather talk about what is not what might be.

 

[Jimmy D]

I don't have to believe a hypothetical in order for it to be useful. Hypothetical situations are SUPPOSED to be a fictitious description, which elicits contemplation about a key point.

That is 100% true if you care to look at the facts. One who believes in evolution believes that everything came from nothing. Nothing and no one is behind everything. It is all a matter of chance and happenstance. As someone once said it is "from goo to you via the zoo." Now if that doesn't require faith I don't know what does.

It doesn't take much to work out that evolution is not scientific, it is philosophical. Behind most discussion of the topic is a claim that God does not exist which is constantly brought up by those arguing for evolution. As soon as you bring God into it it becomes a philosophical discussion. Keeping it scientific means keeping God out of it but that is fraught with danger as the arguement for evolution seems to revolve around God's existence.

In fact when you enter the discussion of evolution, in most cases the person fighting for it does't know what they are trying to defend. Their scientific knowledge is minimal so they fall back on the "God doesn't exist" argument. You then ask them to prove that God doesn't exist and they admit that they can't because as they say you cannot prove a negative. They then get on their high horse and say where is your evidence that God does exist. Even that question reduces evolution to a philosophical discussion.

Furthermore, without fail when evidence is presented even from a scientific perspective, they start to rubbish what has been presented with innate responses which is their way of saying we cannot prove you wrong so they have to resort to bluster and bullying.

Now I know I am on dangerous ground when I say that because evolutionists don't like to be called out and exposed for what they are so they get in touch with the moderators and complain about me flaming and personally attacking them but that is not the case as I am talking generically so no one can say I had a go at them.

There's so much wrong in this post it's quite incredible, you come across as a being well educated so it's difficult to fathom.

To start at the beginning -

That is 100% true if you care to look at the facts. One who believes in evolution believes that everything came from nothing. Nothing and no one is behind everything. It is all a matter of chance and happenstance. As someone once said it is "from goo to you via the zoo." Now if that doesn't require faith I don't know what does.

First, The Theory of Evolution does not include abiogenesis, whether life came about through chemical reactions, was seeded by aliens or created by God is neither here nor there. There are Christians who accept evolution on this very webpage, some of our greatest scientists have been religious, what you say is false as I'm sure you're aware. I suppose it's desperation driving you to post such nonsense.

Secondly, I'm positive you won't find an atheist who claims 'everything came from nothing', I certainly don't believe such a thing and I'm not even sure what it means. I do believe natural causes are responsible for the diversity of life we see around us however.

t doesn't take much to work out that evolution is not scientific, it is philosophical. Behind most discussion of the topic is a claim that God does not exist which is constantly brought up by those arguing for evolution. As soon as you bring God into it it becomes a philosophical discussion. Keeping it scientific means keeping God out of it but that is fraught with danger as the arguement for evolution seems to revolve around God's existence.

That is lazy thinking and plain wrong. The scientific investigations into the theory of evolution provide data that can be objectively verified by anyone with the training to do so (Notice that I said objectively). Despite Creationists constantly trying to bring God into the topic it's a non issue, maybe you would care to find a scientific paper (not an article from a creationist website) that has anything to do with biology, geology, paleontology that discusses God. Besides, I think you'll find that the majority of Christians also accept the TOE, it is only those with a specific interpretation of the bible that refuse to accept observations of the world that can't be refuted. The TOE has never been refuted by science, trying to make it into a philosophical debate is tantamount to admitting defeat. You've got nothing.

In fact when you enter the discussion of evolution, in most cases the person fighting for it does't know what they are trying to defend. Their scientific knowledge is minimal so they fall back on the "God doesn't exist" argument. You then ask them to prove that God doesn't exist and they admit that they can't because as they say you cannot prove a negative. They then get on their high horse and say where is your evidence that God does exist. Even that question reduces evolution to a philosophical discussion.

Feel free to visit one of Loudmouths ERV threads, there is objective evidence there to be discussed. I'm an atheist but I have never used your imaginary 'God doesn't exist' argument, yet you are doing exactly what you accuse others of. If you wish to be taken seriously please show us how the evidence for the TOE is faulty, don't try to turn it into a philosophical debate... it isn't on. BTW, my scientific knowledge is as you say minimal, which is why I don't go around telling people who are much more qualified than me how to do their jobs and that they are wrong.

Furthermore, without fail when evidence is presented even from a scientific perspective, they start to rubbish what has been presented with innate responses which is their way of saying we cannot prove you wrong so they have to resort to bluster and bullying.

You're fond of making these sweeping statements but can't back them up. What evidence have you presented? You're not resorting to bluster are you?

Now I know I am on dangerous ground when I say that because evolutionists don't like to be called out and exposed for what they are so they get in touch with the moderators and complain about me flaming and personally attacking them but that is not the case as I am talking generically so no one can say I had a go at them.

What have you exposed 'evolutionists' as? I think your post demonstrates your own shortcomings more than anyone else.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hypothetically, would you say that a particular universe would have to be either with sin, or without sin? Is that a solid dichotomy, in your opinion?

Yes.

 

[Jimmy D]

Because God is all seeing, he did know what was going to happen, but he chose not to intervene and turn mankind into robots. The fact is, only robots like being robots for the simple reason that they are robots, not people. I have yet to meet anyone who would rather be a robot than a free spirited human.

When mankind started going astray he decided not to intervene preferring to allow mankind to exercise his free will. I am sure you appreciate that because is that was not the case, you would not be an atheist. It was man's choice to sin and God chose not to stop him. The nature of free will.

I would say drowning every living being on the planet because they didn't conform to his standards an intervention. If I believed in such things of course.

 

[expos4ever]

To quote one example, I know there are atheists who swear by the APA for their beliefs about homosexuality (born that way) but what they don't tell you is what a former president of the APA said which was that the APA had been hijacked by homosexual activists and what was presented by them reflected homosexual dogma, not scientific fact.

This is quite a claim. Please give us some sort of evidence to show that what you are reporting here is indeed true.