Philosophical / Logical problems with YEC, OEC and Theistic Evolution

trophy33 · Nov 18, 2018

TheLostCoin said:
Ah, so you are a Hegelian.

Not a bad point to consider.

I am more Leibnizian, but this thought of Hegel is something I consider from time to time.

Job 33:6 · Nov 18, 2018

myst33 said:
Many thoughts and questions... I will respond to the first one: Because it was for some reason better to be evolved to that state than to be created "fiat". Our path of learning is making us more perfect than angels.

God does only what is best.

On the other hand, the rebellion of Adam or of humanity is not put aside just because we accept evolution path to Adam... I am not sure why do you think so.

I've always had the thought that, evolution is a more ideal method of creation because it allows creation to be what it needs to be to survive. Imagine if God made a hairless being. Then of it we're too cold, the being would freeze without hair. But if God made the being capable of evolving, then the being could evolve hair and could survive. Then if it became warm again, the being could lose the hair and again be suited for the endlessly changing environment.

Job 33:6 · Nov 18, 2018

Of course God could hypothetically create us all already in heaven with knowledge and past experiences simply implanted in our heads.

I don't think there is truly a satisfying answer for the problem of evil but to accept that we simply don't understand the full scope of God's plans for us, nor do we understand why God would create a fallen world or allow mankind to make the world fall.

That or one might suggest that our understanding of heaven is flawed in that free will and absolute perfection do not or cannot coexist in beings like mankind. Such perfection and freedom may only exist in God Himself. In which case God would create a fallen world because it is the second best thing to create aside from creating other God's which may be logically impossible.

trophy33 · Nov 18, 2018

TheLostCoin said:
It's why there are 30,000 Christian denominations

How do you define a denomination? I know this number is misused by various atheists or by roman catholics against protestants.

But the reality is not so bad.

If there is a calvinist church in New York and named itself "Grace to you church" and if there is a calvinist church in California and named itself "Church of His grace", they count it as "two denominations", because they are independent on each other, i.e. two free churches.

But, logically, they are not. I would say that there is like 50 denominations in the world, the rest is just local churches or various mixtures of those 50.

If there are two denominations it does not mean that they teach some seriously different things.

JesusYeshuaisLord · Nov 18, 2018

TheLostCoin said:
So, for those who visit TAW, I've engaged with a lengthy discussion about the problems that I see with YEC, OEC, and Theistic Evolution from multiple different perspectives.

I can fully comprehend the idea that the naturalist assumptions in Darwinism can be erroneous and philosophically flawed.

However, upon looking at all three of these alternatives, I don't see how any of them can really make sense if we are to believe in Christianity.

Young Earth Creationism - that is, a belief in the age of a young earth, typically held by most to be 6000 years - seems hard to understand in light of the massive amount of evidence that contradicts this point of view - mainly the issue of geology, radiometry, and the fossil record. How could a flood like what was described in Noah's Ark create the results that it did - why is it, that extremely less complex life-forms are at the bottom with more complex life-forms at the top, with such a linear formation that nobody has found anything that would suggest non-linearity? Why is it that radiometric dating all (in the various techniques used) seems to confirm consistent dates for where these fossils are found (gradually increasing in year-size), the lack of human remains that would naturally be found within the strata, had such a flood occurred, and the various different compositions of the strata themselves which are all layered in such a way that they seem to imply that the layers were added via erosion. How could a flood, if it came from the bottom up and top down, create such an effect where fossils that are located in millions year old dated strata are, in fact, located?

This isn't even with the assumption of 6000 years - a date I find to be extremely problematic from just merely an archaeological perspective, because there are calendars that are older than the date of when the Flood would occur according to YEC proponents - including the Hebrew Calendar, the Chinese Calendar, and even the Yazidi Calendar, the Yazidi Calendar being older than 6000 years. Or perhaps the fact that the languages of the Sumerians, Babylonians, and once again, the Chinese, are older than 3000 years but yet no flood has interrupted the progress of their culture or civilization.

With OEC - which I define as Old Earth Creationism which denies Theistic Evolution, I find problematic with the fossil record once again, which makes even less sense than YEC. How is it that we have hominid skeletons that are several millions of years old that are located where they are? If you hold to a flood, how can a flood cause the fossil record to be lined up so drastically they are located where they are, but so non-drastically that it doesn't affect the the sediments themselves erosion-wise? If you believe that the fossil record was put there by God in His design of the world, you lead to the intentional belief that God is deceptive, as to create the illusion of death, which would be problematic with His benevolence.

Also, how does Eden being vegetarian play a role in the history of Salvation? Even If you are a Protestant, the earliest Church Fathers like Saint Irenaeus and Saint Theophilus of Antioch from the 2nd century clearly believed that Creation was vegetarian, which would be contradictory.

With Theistic Evolution - that is, Old Earth Creationism which accepts Theistic Evolution - you get into a whole bunch of problems regarding the fact that - if God created us in a condition of death - the purpose of Christ's redemption is ultimately made completely meaningless, as are the promises of a return to a world that once was in the Old Testament. If you attempt to believe that at one point humanity was given a soul or transfigured, you have to deal with the fact that the implications of Genesis are wrong, which implies complete harmony between man and beast, with both creatures being vegetarian. If you believe that this is purely symbolic, it makes no sense why we shouldn't extrapolate such ideas of symbolism onto ANY of the Events of the Bible, even Christ's Death and Resurrection. Yeah, it's Casuitry, but I don't get how such Casuitry can be unsound, especially when this becomes especially all the more problematic when your Church claims direct, Apostolic descent, with Church Fathers who explicitly argued against and denied evolution as a heresy (in Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, or Oriental Orthodoxy).

I don't want to become an Agnostic. I don't. I feel like God has been there for me in the worst of my troubles, but the more and more I think about it logically, the more and more unsound and untenable these positions become to me, because I despise and hate cognitive dissonance / compartmentalization. Maybe it's the truth which I am ultimately terrified of - that there exists nothing but an empty space and me, and I am just a thought.

Please pray for me. If there's a God out there, and there is a Devil, maybe God can still save me from the Serpent whispering into my ears and help me find the Truth of Christ - if Christ is True, if God is True, and if the devil existing is True.

"Did God really say...?" The good old question from the Serpent! And what we love to answer is "God said *insert here any bible verse* AND *insert here what you want the say or what you think/imagine he said* "
This part of the answer in bold is where we add, take away and invent because we still want to think that our human knowledge/logic is somehow above what God says...
Now, with that in mind, you look at all the theories and put them against the bible text which is by the way the very WORD of GOD (and God does not lie). So to the question "Did God really say...?" is the answer going to be "God said *insert here any bible verse*" or "God said *insert here any bible verse* AND *insert here what you/other humans want the say what you/other humans think/imagine he said* " or "God didn't say anything but I/other humans say....".

Why as Christians do we need the secular to agree with us when we know that:
Romans 1
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

and

1 Corinthians 1:
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

It is not man we want to please, it is God. Let intelligent secular scientists call me a fool and let Old earth creationist call me a fool, I'd rather die a fool in this world's eyes than die as a lost soul unable to accept God as God the Almighty who with a Word can move a mountain and calm the sea and flood the earth and bring dead people to life!! Praises be to God the Almighty.

Job 40
1 And the LORD said to Job:
2 "Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty? He who argues with God, let him answer it."
3 Then Job answered the LORD and said:
4"Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth.
5 I have spoken once, and I will not answer; twice, but I will proceed no further."
6 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:
7 "Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me.
8 Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be in the right?

Job 42
1 Then Job answered the LORD and said:
2 "I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
3 'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?' Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
4 'Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you make it known to me.'
5 I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you;
6 therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes."

pshun2404 · Nov 18, 2018

TheLostCoin said:
So, for those who visit TAW, I've engaged with a lengthy discussion about the problems that I see with YEC, OEC, and Theistic Evolution from multiple different perspectives.

I can fully comprehend the idea that the naturalist assumptions in Darwinism can be erroneous and philosophically flawed.

However, upon looking at all three of these alternatives, I don't see how any of them can really make sense if we are to believe in Christianity.

Young Earth Creationism - that is, a belief in the age of a young earth, typically held by most to be 6000 years - seems hard to understand in light of the massive amount of evidence that contradicts this point of view - mainly the issue of geology, radiometry, and the fossil record. How could a flood like what was described in Noah's Ark create the results that it did - why is it, that extremely less complex life-forms are at the bottom with more complex life-forms at the top, with such a linear formation that nobody has found anything that would suggest non-linearity? Why is it that radiometric dating all (in the various techniques used) seems to confirm consistent dates for where these fossils are found (gradually increasing in year-size), the lack of human remains that would naturally be found within the strata, had such a flood occurred, and the various different compositions of the strata themselves which are all layered in such a way that they seem to imply that the layers were added via erosion. How could a flood, if it came from the bottom up and top down, create such an effect where fossils that are located in millions year old dated strata are, in fact, located?

This isn't even with the assumption of 6000 years - a date I find to be extremely problematic from just merely an archaeological perspective, because there are calendars that are older than the date of when the Flood would occur according to YEC proponents - including the Hebrew Calendar, the Chinese Calendar, and even the Yazidi Calendar, the Yazidi Calendar being older than 6000 years. Or perhaps the fact that the languages of the Sumerians, Babylonians, and once again, the Chinese, are older than 3000 years but yet no flood has interrupted the progress of their culture or civilization.

With OEC - which I define as Old Earth Creationism which denies Theistic Evolution, I find problematic with the fossil record once again, which makes even less sense than YEC. How is it that we have hominid skeletons that are several millions of years old that are located where they are? If you hold to a flood, how can a flood cause the fossil record to be lined up so drastically they are located where they are, but so non-drastically that it doesn't affect the the sediments themselves erosion-wise? If you believe that the fossil record was put there by God in His design of the world, you lead to the intentional belief that God is deceptive, as to create the illusion of death, which would be problematic with His benevolence.

Also, how does Eden being vegetarian play a role in the history of Salvation? Even If you are a Protestant, the earliest Church Fathers like Saint Irenaeus and Saint Theophilus of Antioch from the 2nd century clearly believed that Creation was vegetarian, which would be contradictory.

With Theistic Evolution - that is, Old Earth Creationism which accepts Theistic Evolution - you get into a whole bunch of problems regarding the fact that - if God created us in a condition of death - the purpose of Christ's redemption is ultimately made completely meaningless, as are the promises of a return to a world that once was in the Old Testament. If you attempt to believe that at one point humanity was given a soul or transfigured, you have to deal with the fact that the implications of Genesis are wrong, which implies complete harmony between man and beast, with both creatures being vegetarian. If you believe that this is purely symbolic, it makes no sense why we shouldn't extrapolate such ideas of symbolism onto ANY of the Events of the Bible, even Christ's Death and Resurrection. Yeah, it's Casuitry, but I don't get how such Casuitry can be unsound, especially when this becomes especially all the more problematic when your Church claims direct, Apostolic descent, with Church Fathers who explicitly argued against and denied evolution as a heresy (in Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, or Oriental Orthodoxy).

I don't want to become an Agnostic. I don't. I feel like God has been there for me in the worst of my troubles, but the more and more I think about it logically, the more and more unsound and untenable these positions become to me, because I despise and hate cognitive dissonance / compartmentalization. Maybe it's the truth which I am ultimately terrified of - that there exists nothing but an empty space and me, and I am just a thought.

Please pray for me. If there's a God out there, and there is a Devil, maybe God can still save me from the Serpent whispering into my ears and help me find the Truth of Christ - if Christ is True, if God is True, and if the devil existing is True.

The problems you espouse all arise because lurking in your subconscious is a recognition of Genesis 1-11 as being accurate historically (possibly literal). Had God, through Moses and the documents collected at that time, meant to give a moment by moment scientifically descriptive account (as if that were meant to be the point) it would have fell on deaf ears. The point of where this was going had to be presented in a culturally relative and linguistically capable format not so much that people could read it but that they would get the main intent and point when they heard it. For example, if YHVH used feminine pronouns in relation to Himself, the whole thing would have been trash heaped because of the strongly rooted patriarchal imperative in their culture.

pshun2404 · Nov 18, 2018

myst33 said:
Theistic evolution has many forms. I personally think that God created the Universe with natural laws and with such motions that it naturally lead to everything He planned without a need to do everything supernaturally.

As a tree is hidden in a seed, in the same way I can imagine everything we have today to be hidden in the Big Bang. Causes lead to causes etc till the end of the Universe.

On the other hand, recent discoveries in science, particulary in the field of quantum mechanics, may suggest that our world is kind of "nothing" made existent just by the observing effect, similarly to how game engines work in computers.
I am not sure how this can work together with the macro cosmology (the Big Bang), but nobody probably knows yet.

God is great.

Yes but in that QP view it ultimately points to essential reality having an essential observer.

Watch this...

TheLostCoin · Nov 18, 2018

archer75 said:
I do not understand why it is necessary to worry about these things.

Why should every Christian have to have an informed opinion about matters they've never studied or have never studied beyond a very basic level?

I believe that if these things are negatively affecting you, we should confront it to overcome it rather than suppressing it.

I don't think every Christian should have an informed opinion about it - but I would like to resolve this paradox for me personally (if it can be resolved), because I personally really struggle with cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization. If I recognize that I am consciously allowing a significant contradiction to exist within my own ideas, it harms my relationship with God.

For me, this is something that has been infringing on my spiritual life for far too long, as an obstacle which allows the devil to easily tempt me.

archer75 · Nov 18, 2018

TheLostCoin said:
I believe that if these things are negatively affecting you, we should confront it to overcome it rather than suppressing it.

I don't think every Christian should have an informed opinion about it - but I would like to resolve this paradox for me personally (if it can be resolved), because I personally really struggle with cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization. If I recognize that I am consciously allowing a significant contradiction to exist within my own ideas, it harms my relationship with God.

For me, this is something that has been infringing on my spiritual life for far too long, as an obstacle which allows the devil to easily tempt me.

I sympathize with your desire to avoid incoherence, if I follow you.

That said, I have had to accept that I know different things in different ways, and I won't always be able to account for "love" in my budget spreadsheet. YMMV.

mark kennedy · Nov 18, 2018

TheLostCoin said:
So, for those who visit TAW, I've engaged with a lengthy discussion about the problems that I see with YEC, OEC, and Theistic Evolution from multiple different perspectives.

I can fully comprehend the idea that the naturalist assumptions in Darwinism can be erroneous and philosophically flawed.

However, upon looking at all three of these alternatives, I don't see how any of them can really make sense if we are to believe in Christianity.

Young Earth Creationism - that is, a belief in the age of a young earth, typically held by most to be 6000 years - seems hard to understand in light of the massive amount of evidence that contradicts this point of view - mainly the issue of geology, radiometry, and the fossil record. How could a flood like what was described in Noah's Ark create the results that it did - why is it, that extremely less complex life-forms are at the bottom with more complex life-forms at the top, with such a linear formation that nobody has found anything that would suggest non-linearity? Why is it that radiometric dating all (in the various techniques used) seems to confirm consistent dates for where these fossils are found (gradually increasing in year-size), the lack of human remains that would naturally be found within the strata, had such a flood occurred, and the various different compositions of the strata themselves which are all layered in such a way that they seem to imply that the layers were added via erosion. How could a flood, if it came from the bottom up and top down, create such an effect where fossils that are located in millions year old dated strata are, in fact, located?

This isn't even with the assumption of 6000 years - a date I find to be extremely problematic from just merely an archaeological perspective, because there are calendars that are older than the date of when the Flood would occur according to YEC proponents - including the Hebrew Calendar, the Chinese Calendar, and even the Yazidi Calendar, the Yazidi Calendar being older than 6000 years. Or perhaps the fact that the languages of the Sumerians, Babylonians, and once again, the Chinese, are older than 3000 years but yet no flood has interrupted the progress of their culture or civilization.

With OEC - which I define as Old Earth Creationism which denies Theistic Evolution, I find problematic with the fossil record once again, which makes even less sense than YEC. How is it that we have hominid skeletons that are several millions of years old that are located where they are? If you hold to a flood, how can a flood cause the fossil record to be lined up so drastically they are located where they are, but so non-drastically that it doesn't affect the the sediments themselves erosion-wise? If you believe that the fossil record was put there by God in His design of the world, you lead to the intentional belief that God is deceptive, as to create the illusion of death, which would be problematic with His benevolence.

Also, how does Eden being vegetarian play a role in the history of Salvation? Even If you are a Protestant, the earliest Church Fathers like Saint Irenaeus and Saint Theophilus of Antioch from the 2nd century clearly believed that Creation was vegetarian, which would be contradictory.

With Theistic Evolution - that is, Old Earth Creationism which accepts Theistic Evolution - you get into a whole bunch of problems regarding the fact that - if God created us in a condition of death - the purpose of Christ's redemption is ultimately made completely meaningless, as are the promises of a return to a world that once was in the Old Testament. If you attempt to believe that at one point humanity was given a soul or transfigured, you have to deal with the fact that the implications of Genesis are wrong, which implies complete harmony between man and beast, with both creatures being vegetarian. If you believe that this is purely symbolic, it makes no sense why we shouldn't extrapolate such ideas of symbolism onto ANY of the Events of the Bible, even Christ's Death and Resurrection. Yeah, it's Casuitry, but I don't get how such Casuitry can be unsound, especially when this becomes especially all the more problematic when your Church claims direct, Apostolic descent, with Church Fathers who explicitly argued against and denied evolution as a heresy (in Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, or Oriental Orthodoxy).

I don't want to become an Agnostic. I don't. I feel like God has been there for me in the worst of my troubles, but the more and more I think about it logically, the more and more unsound and untenable these positions become to me, because I despise and hate cognitive dissonance / compartmentalization. Maybe it's the truth which I am ultimately terrified of - that there exists nothing but an empty space and me, and I am just a thought.

Please pray for me. If there's a God out there, and there is a Devil, maybe God can still save me from the Serpent whispering into my ears and help me find the Truth of Christ - if Christ is True, if God is True, and if the devil existing is True.

First of all, there is a difference between YEC and that alternative of the universe created 6000 years ago, if we are talking strictly about life. As Christians, let us remember, the promise of eternal life. I think the difference is in the timeline, nothing more. How old the cosmos is, is an open question as far as I can tell. I'm convinced that the story of Adam and Eve is true and the stone age ape man is false. So sorry for dismissing so many millions of years of development, but the counter arguments remain, unconvincing.

Grace and peace,
Mark

trophy33 · Nov 19, 2018

TheLostCoin said:
I believe that if these things are negatively affecting you, we should confront it to overcome it rather than suppressing it.

I don't think every Christian should have an informed opinion about it - but I would like to resolve this paradox for me personally (if it can be resolved), because I personally really struggle with cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization. If I recognize that I am consciously allowing a significant contradiction to exist within my own ideas, it harms my relationship with God.

For me, this is something that has been infringing on my spiritual life for far too long, as an obstacle which allows the devil to easily tempt me.

That two things cannot contradict each other is a formal logic with which we understand the world around us, in this universe. But regarding the origin of the universe as such, there are no such logic laws. Therefore we should be prepared that something does not have to be understandable in our spacetime reality and for our brains made to live in this spacetime reality.
If one cannot accept agnosticism about past and future in details (we know generally, though) G.W. Hegel is a good treatment for a mind having problems with various truths that contradict each other.

gideon123 · Nov 19, 2018

TheLostCoin

please understand that the process of scientific reasoning is not a clear and straight path. sometimes there is not enough data. there just isnt.

what do scientists do in that situation? we might have ideas, we might have speculations (hypotheses), but we MUST keep our minds open. Therefore, we hold two opposite conclusions in our heads. The situation is unresolved, as you say. We keep two conflicting ideas in our head, and we wait until there is more data. Sometimes that happens in Science.

I am not suggesting that you do the same thing with your Faith. You already have the Bible ... are you reading it each day ? You already have prayer. Are you talking to your pastor ... do you have a pastor? These things are tremendously important to help you resolve matters of faith.

You should not let Scientific conclusions upset your decisions about faith. Sometimes Science waivers, often scientists change their minds. Try not to get too upset about 'facts' that exist in the blurry world that was 4 billion years ago ... give or take half-a-billion years.

Job 33:6 · Nov 19, 2018

I often hear fellow Christians suggest things like the above. "Well science is often un-settled and changes".

Well, thats partly true.

Newton's theory of gravity for example, was more or less overtaken by Einsteins theory of relativity. In that sense, science can change where scientists now refer to one theory of gravitation over another, as relativity gives a more accurate picture of how gravity works in deep space.

But this doesn't really mean that Newton was necessarily wrong. What he observed and established was accurate, just within a limited scope that was later expanded upon and advanced.

With respect to old earth geology, fundamentals of relative dating which demonstrate an old earth, have been around and have been accepted for some 300 years. We have a pretty strong grasp on what we know about rocks with respect to their ages.

With that said, while it is true that geologists might debate on....something abstract like precisely where land was exposed during the breakup of Rodinia, there really isnt any indication that we are incorrect about the age of the earth, nor has there been for those 300 years since it was first proposed and since built upon.

-------------------------------------
And it is true that...science is self correcting. Back to relativity, it stepped in, and corrected areas of newtonian gravitation that were limited and incorrect with respect to distant bodies in space.

But if anything, self correction isnt something people should look at negatively. Rather self correction is a demonstration that we are moving toward truth.

So, if 300 years ago someone proposed that the earth was old based on relative dating methods. We have had a solid 300 years of self correction and research to debunk such a concept. Yet here we are, quite firm in confidence of an old earth.

Meanwhile, young earth creationism never really moved toward truth. It has just sort of stayed there, stagnant, while the world progresses without it. It is now more of a...dying star of the past, a shadow of what it once was centuries ago.

misput · Nov 19, 2018

it is not a critical issue, because we are not going to be judged on matters such as this. In other words "keep the main thing, the main thing. That being said, it really helps to be able to discern between figurative and literal, ie, a talking snake, a tree that brings eternal life, etc. It also helps to look up word meanings, like day which can mean any part of a day, twenty four hrs., a period of time or an age. Hebrews chapter 3 & 4 associates the 7th day with today making it thousands of years. Let the Spirit guide you : )

Deborah D · Nov 19, 2018

myst33 said:
Just a thought:

Thesis - antithesis - synthesis

If there are two truths that contradicts each other, then their synthesis is a solution.

If one truth is, that a car is blue and the second truth is that the same car is yellow, then the outcome is that the car is green (green is composed of blue and yellow).

I've never seen the Hegelian (or Hegel's) Dialectic put quite like that. Here's an explanation of what it actually is.

Hegel maintains that the juxtaposition and violent interaction of binary oppositions will continue until a position is reached which is so perfectly balanced that no new antithesis can arise, because there are no extremes left to form a thesis. This bland-sounding paradise is what Hegel calls THE ABSOLUTE IDEA, and history is the process of human civilization working toward this end point, motivated by a spiritual force which Hegel calls the WORLD-SPIRIT or WORLD-MIND. Because the ultimate cause of progress in Hegel's view of history is an abstract force, we call his philosophy a form of idealism (there are many philosophical ideas which merit this description).

Karl Marx later accepts Hegel's idea of the dialectical process as the mainspring of inevitable human progress, but he rejects Hegel's explanation that all this is due to some abstract force seeking perfection. In response, Marx develops an idea we call dialectical materialism . . .

(THE HEGELIAN DIALECTIC)

You can see that Hegel's concept of using the process of thesis/antithesis/synthesis to arrive at some sort of truth is completely unbiblical. Hegel's "absolute idea" is not the Christian's idea of truth. God reveals truth in the Bible. We don't find it through a process cooked up by Hegel, who obviously didn't believe in the Christian God. Karl Marx modified Hegel's ideas and developed dialectical materialism, the foundational philosophy of communism.

TheLostCoin · Nov 19, 2018

Deborah D said:
I've never seen the Hegelian (or Hegel's) Dialectic put quite like that.

From what I remember of my 19th century political theory course (Hegel was discussed because he became foundational for both Marx and Weber), Hegel himself argued using his logic that Jesus Christ was the perfect synthesis between men worshiping created things (not being able to access the Perfect and Infinite God) and the Jews worshiping the uncreated God (who was not directly relatable and is incomprehensible; Christ, the Logos who is uncreated, while retaining His Divine Nature, took on human nature, so the infinite and inaccessible is made accessible.

Deborah D · Nov 19, 2018

TheLostCoin said:
From what I remember of my 19th century political theory course (Hegel was discussed because he became foundational for both Marx and Weber), Hegel himself argued using his logic that Jesus Christ was the perfect synthesis between men worshiping created things (not being able to access the Perfect and Infinite God) and the Jews worshiping the uncreated God (who was not directly relatable and is incomprehensible; Christ, the Logos who is uncreated, while retaining His Divine Nature, took on human nature, so the infinite and inaccessible is made accessible.

That's interesting. Perhaps I've read the more secular account that his ideas were based on the philosophies of Plato and Kant. I'll look into it.

Edit: I found the following quote:

The specifically Christian idea of God is as absolute spirit, which means that the divine life takes on a trinitarian structure: immediacy or self-identity, self-differentiation or positing of otherness, and self-return or consummation. This is the life-process of spirit itself. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity articulates this insight in representational language that introduces numbers (three-in-one) and persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). In Hegel’s speculative reconstruction, God is to be understood not as three persons but as infinite personality or subjectivity, which constitutes distinctions within itself but suspends these distinctions and remains in unity with itself. Life, love, and friendship all exhibit this dialectical structure. Traces and anticipations of the Trinity are to be found in everything and everywhere—an insight grasped by a heterodox tradition going back to Pythagoreans, Neoplatonists, Gnostics, and German mystics such as Boehme.
(Trinity: God as Absolute Spirit - Oxford Scholarship)

It appears from this quote that Hegel rejected orthodox Christians beliefs. But I'm not an expert on Hegel by any means.

redleghunter · Nov 19, 2018

TheLostCoin said:
So, for those who visit TAW, I've engaged with a lengthy discussion about the problems that I see with YEC, OEC, and Theistic Evolution from multiple different perspectives.

I can fully comprehend the idea that the naturalist assumptions in Darwinism can be erroneous and philosophically flawed.

However, upon looking at all three of these alternatives, I don't see how any of them can really make sense if we are to believe in Christianity.

Young Earth Creationism - that is, a belief in the age of a young earth, typically held by most to be 6000 years - seems hard to understand in light of the massive amount of evidence that contradicts this point of view - mainly the issue of geology, radiometry, and the fossil record. How could a flood like what was described in Noah's Ark create the results that it did - why is it, that extremely less complex life-forms are at the bottom with more complex life-forms at the top, with such a linear formation that nobody has found anything that would suggest non-linearity? Why is it that radiometric dating all (in the various techniques used) seems to confirm consistent dates for where these fossils are found (gradually increasing in year-size), the lack of human remains that would naturally be found within the strata, had such a flood occurred, and the various different compositions of the strata themselves which are all layered in such a way that they seem to imply that the layers were added via erosion. How could a flood, if it came from the bottom up and top down, create such an effect where fossils that are located in millions year old dated strata are, in fact, located?

This isn't even with the assumption of 6000 years - a date I find to be extremely problematic from just merely an archaeological perspective, because there are calendars that are older than the date of when the Flood would occur according to YEC proponents - including the Hebrew Calendar, the Chinese Calendar, and even the Yazidi Calendar, the Yazidi Calendar being older than 6000 years. Or perhaps the fact that the languages of the Sumerians, Babylonians, and once again, the Chinese, are older than 3000 years but yet no flood has interrupted the progress of their culture or civilization.

With OEC - which I define as Old Earth Creationism which denies Theistic Evolution, I find problematic with the fossil record once again, which makes even less sense than YEC. How is it that we have hominid skeletons that are several millions of years old that are located where they are? If you hold to a flood, how can a flood cause the fossil record to be lined up so drastically they are located where they are, but so non-drastically that it doesn't affect the the sediments themselves erosion-wise? If you believe that the fossil record was put there by God in His design of the world, you lead to the intentional belief that God is deceptive, as to create the illusion of death, which would be problematic with His benevolence.

Also, how does Eden being vegetarian play a role in the history of Salvation? Even If you are a Protestant, the earliest Church Fathers like Saint Irenaeus and Saint Theophilus of Antioch from the 2nd century clearly believed that Creation was vegetarian, which would be contradictory.

With Theistic Evolution - that is, Old Earth Creationism which accepts Theistic Evolution - you get into a whole bunch of problems regarding the fact that - if God created us in a condition of death - the purpose of Christ's redemption is ultimately made completely meaningless, as are the promises of a return to a world that once was in the Old Testament. If you attempt to believe that at one point humanity was given a soul or transfigured, you have to deal with the fact that the implications of Genesis are wrong, which implies complete harmony between man and beast, with both creatures being vegetarian. If you believe that this is purely symbolic, it makes no sense why we shouldn't extrapolate such ideas of symbolism onto ANY of the Events of the Bible, even Christ's Death and Resurrection. Yeah, it's Casuitry, but I don't get how such Casuitry can be unsound, especially when this becomes especially all the more problematic when your Church claims direct, Apostolic descent, with Church Fathers who explicitly argued against and denied evolution as a heresy (in Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, or Oriental Orthodoxy).

I don't want to become an Agnostic. I don't. I feel like God has been there for me in the worst of my troubles, but the more and more I think about it logically, the more and more unsound and untenable these positions become to me, because I despise and hate cognitive dissonance / compartmentalization. Maybe it's the truth which I am ultimately terrified of - that there exists nothing but an empty space and me, and I am just a thought.

Please pray for me. If there's a God out there, and there is a Devil, maybe God can still save me from the Serpent whispering into my ears and help me find the Truth of Christ - if Christ is True, if God is True, and if the devil existing is True.

How do you handle the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ after being dead three days?

TheLostCoin · Nov 19, 2018

Deborah D said:
That's interesting. Perhaps I've read the more secular account that his ideas were based on the philosophies of Plato and Kant. I'll look into it.

Edit: I found the following quote:

The specifically Christian idea of God is as absolute spirit, which means that the divine life takes on a trinitarian structure: immediacy or self-identity, self-differentiation or positing of otherness, and self-return or consummation. This is the life-process of spirit itself. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity articulates this insight in representational language that introduces numbers (three-in-one) and persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). In Hegel’s speculative reconstruction, God is to be understood not as three persons but as infinite personality or subjectivity, which constitutes distinctions within itself but suspends these distinctions and remains in unity with itself. Life, love, and friendship all exhibit this dialectical structure. Traces and anticipations of the Trinity are to be found in everything and everywhere—an insight grasped by a heterodox tradition going back to Pythagoreans, Neoplatonists, Gnostics, and German mystics such as Boehme.
(Trinity: God as Absolute Spirit - Oxford Scholarship)

It appears from this quote that Hegel rejected orthodox Christians beliefs. But I'm not an expert on Hegel by any means.

Well, that's the thing about literature up until even the 19th century - if you didn't look like you've analyzed Christianity and didn't hold a belief in God, your work was dismiss-able, regardless if you believed in God or not. Darwin stated in his earlier writings that he was a theist, but near the end of his life he wrote that he could best be described as Agnostic.

Deborah D · Nov 19, 2018

TheLostCoin said:
Well, that's the thing about literature up until even the 19th century - if you didn't look like you've analyzed Christianity and didn't hold a belief in God, your work was dismiss-able, regardless if you believed in God or not. Darwin stated in his earlier writings that he was a theist, but near the end of his life he wrote that he could best be described as Agnostic.

True, and Hegel seemed to have left his Christian roots, at least to an extent.

Philosophical / Logical problems with YEC, OEC and Theistic Evolution

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Newbie

Newbie

A Lonesome Coin

Well-Known Member

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

Humble Servant of God

Well-Known Member

JimD

Prayer Warrior

A Lonesome Coin

Prayer Warrior

Thank You Jesus!

A Lonesome Coin

Prayer Warrior

Similar threads