Evolution Promotes Brutality

[Hoghead1]

It all depends upon what "evolutionists" you are speaking of. Many Christians including myself, understand God as working through evolution.

 

[JacksBratt]

Back to omnipotence. The latter means that God has complete and total monopolistic control over everything that happens. Hence, yes, it does mean that God is a cosmic dictator that that he is responsible for all evil events. If we have some real degree of freedom, then God cannot be omnipotent, as we have some real degree of power in our own right.

God is omnipotent meaning He is all powerful. This doesn't mean He controls everything.
Having the power and choosing when to use it is the point here.
God is not all controlling just because He has the ability to.
You can have the power to hold your child in the swimming pool as you swim. You can also, let them swim on their own with the power to save them if they start to sink.
You have the power to keep them safe but you can let them have the freedom to swim around as you watch.

 

[JacksBratt]

It all depends upon what "evolutionists" you are speaking of. Many Christians including myself, understand God as working through evolution.

I will pray for you.

 

[JacksBratt]

I have difficulty understanding your thinking. There is no reason why a person cannot accept that evolution has happened and yet still choose to accept the moral framework presented in the Bible.

And the atheist, just like the believer, is choosing to ascribe to a particular moral framework (in all likelihood it will be generally similar to a framework based on Jesus' teaching).

Now we can debate the values of the moral framework with that of the atheist on points where they differ. But I see absolutely no justification for your claim that the atheist's framework has no "platform" - his platform is collective human experience and yours is the prescriptions of a book.

Can you actually make a case as to why the Biblical moral framework is superior? And to answer that "it's God's framework" is to OBVIOUSLY engage in circular reasoning. Clearly, if the atheist believed in the existence of a morally perfect God, he would accept the Biblical moral model.

Let me ask you this... what is a Bible believing person using as a foundation for the morals and ethics of this world?

IMO it is God and His laws. A superior being laying down laws and deciding what is right and what is wrong. This is unchanging (unless God was to give us a new set of regs).

What is an evolutionist using for the foundation for the morals and ethics of this world?

IMO other men and women and the common agreement that "X" is good and "Y" is bad....This can change and, as seen in history, has changed.

I believe that some day some person will come into power and through human logic and reasoning lay down new laws and values that will turn brother against brother, wife against husband and destroy the happy, peaceful, moral foundation of civilization as we know it. They will do this because people will have put God in a corner. When he is out of the picture there will be no datum to found right and wrong on. Human's in control of what is right and wrong.... bad idea.

 

[Hoghead1]

I have a problem with what y u are saying, Jacksbratt. It seems as if you are claiming that God cold do not, but is just holding back. I disagree. That would be negligence on God's part. My point is that God is seeking to maximize beauty, and that means complexity, and complexity automatically means freedom, that things could go some other way. Since Good's ultimate goal is aesthetic, God is compelled to have a universe which contains the possibility of evil occurring.

 

[AV1611VET]

Back to omnipotence. The latter means that God has complete and total monopolistic control over everything that happens. Hence, yes, it does mean that God is a cosmic dictator that that he is responsible for all evil events. If we have some real degree of freedom, then God cannot be omnipotent, as we have some real degree of power in our own right.

That's not how omnipotence works.

If I built an all-powerful car, am I responsible for what the driver does with it?

 

[46AND2]

That's not how omnipotence works.

If I built an all-powerful car, am I responsible for what the driver does with it?

If you also created the driver, then yes.

 

[Cearbhall]

Where do you want this survival of the fittest killing done? Out on Hiway 61 for trillions upon trillions of creatures and millions of years?

What's Hiway 61...?

 

[AV1611VET]

If you also created the driver, then yes.

You against free will, are you?

 

[46AND2]

You against free will, are you?

If you made a robot driver for your car, would you be responsible for the driver's actions?

I'm not against it in principle, I just don't see how it is possible to have given an omnipotent, omniscient creator, should there be one.

 

[Astrophile]

In particular, lifeforms have been around for over 200 million years which have continuously lived by biting and devouring other lifeforms.

First, I thought that it was more like 600 million years. Second, most animals bite and devour living plants. Do you include that under the heading of brutality?

 

[Astrophile]

When he is out of the picture there will be no datum to found right and wrong on. Human's in control of what is right and wrong.... bad idea.

What I hate myself I must not do to my neighbour.

 

[JacksBratt]

I have a problem with what y u are saying, Jacksbratt. It seems as if you are claiming that God cold do not, but is just holding back. I disagree. That would be negligence on God's part. My point is that God is seeking to maximize beauty, and that means complexity, and complexity automatically means freedom, that things could go some other way. Since Good's ultimate goal is aesthetic, God is compelled to have a universe which contains the possibility of evil occurring.

God is not seeking maximum beauty. He is seeking fellowship and worship, which He is totally deserving of. He created us to worship and fellowship with Him. He created us in His image. He cannot, or should I say we cannot withstand His Righteousness if we are not perfect. He had to give us free will because He wanted, only, the ones that chose Him out of free will by faith. To create a bunch of robots would be pointless. So, He created us with free will. Gave us the choice to believe by faith and have our eyes opened, or deny, doubt and dismiss His existence and remain blind to the wonders of His kingdom and have eternal separation from Him.

 

[JacksBratt]

What I hate myself I must not do to my neighbour.

???

 

[Astrophile]

???

This is a non-theistic moral principle called the Golden Rule. If I hate something when it is done to me, I must not do it to other people.

 

[JacksBratt]

If you made a robot driver for your car, would you be responsible for the driver's actions?

I'm not against it in principle, I just don't see how it is possible to have given an omnipotent, omniscient creator, should there be one.

That is like the Mona Lisa stating "I don't believe in Leonardo DaVinci..."She, being a painting, is in a one dimensional world and is totally incapable of understanding or comprehending anything in the real world outside of her static one dimensional world with the capacity that a painting can comprehend.

We are created by a creator that exists outside the confines of the space time continuum. He is not controlled by or under any laws of physics or other scientific laws for which His creation has to abide.

 

[JacksBratt]

This is a non-theistic moral principle called the Golden Rule. If I hate something when it is done to me, I must not do it to other people.

I understand the concept. Where did it come from, in your opinion?

The other half of the Golden rule.... well, the Golden rule is "love the Lord your God with all your heart soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself"

The last part could be translated or paraphrased as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

It's from Biblical scripture. It is not a "non-theistic" moral principle. It's a quote of what Jesus said when he was trying to be tricked by the religious leaders and they asked what the most important commandment was.

All the other commandments are based on this. You cannot break one of the ten commandments without breaking one of these two commandments.

 

[46AND2]

That is like the Mona Lisa stating "I don't believe in Leonardo DaVinci..."She, being a painting, is in a one dimensional world and is totally incapable of understanding or comprehending anything in the real world outside of her static one dimensional world with the capacity that a painting can comprehend.

We are created by a creator that exists outside the confines of the space time continuum. He is not controlled by or under any laws of physics or other scientific laws for which His creation has to abide.

Or...it's like a fundamental Christian getting god's attributes completely wrong.

Or...it's like ancient superstitious, uneducated goat herders telling tall tales cause they can't comprehend the world around them...

 

[lasthero]

That is like the Mona Lisa stating "I don't believe in Leonardo DaVinci..."She, being a painting, is in a one dimensional world and is totally incapable of understanding or comprehending anything in the real world outside of her static one dimensional world with the capacity that a painting can comprehend.

Two-dimensional, actually.

 

[JacksBratt]

Or...it's like a fundamental Christian getting god's attributes completely wrong.

Or...it's like ancient superstitious, uneducated goat herders telling tall tales cause they can't comprehend the world around them...

Can you name these supposedly "uneducated" goat herders?
Moses was trained by the Egyptian elite.
David was a King, Great warrior and musician.
Solomon was the wisest man that will ever live.
Mathew was a Tax collector.
Luke was a doctor.
Saul who became Paul was well educated in school of Gamaliel and studied classical literature, philosophy and ethics.

see below from : http://www.iloveatheists.com/top_100/challenge_category/The Bible - General/challenge_answer/285

How one could be illiterate and write is beyond me, but one can hardly say that writers of the Bible were unintelligent men even if they weren't all highly educated. We have Moses who would have received the finest Egyptian education. He wrote down 5 of the Bibles 66 books. David indeed started as a Shepherd, but by the time he was writing much of the Psalms, he was the King of Israel. Solomon had wisdom that surpassed any who came before or after him (with the exception of Jesus), with his contributions to the Bible being Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Songs of Solomon. Luke, the writer of Luke and Acts was a doctor. Peter was a fisherman. Paul was a tent maker. Yet these men managed to turn the world upside down and silence the greatest minds of their time. Add to this that it is likely they spoke at least 2 if not 3 languages, something the UK government would die for when it comes to today's students!