Evolution or Creationism?

[Oncedeceived]

That makes no sense....
This system is exceptionally cruel.

It is entirely based on the harsh struggle of survival.
It's like a straight up arms race between species.

Antilopes just fast enough to outrun hungry lions.
Lions just fast enough to outrun antilopes to devour.

Micro-organisms that cause terrible suffering, etc.

It's actually a system of death.

So you think that animals should have all been herbivores?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yersinia_pestis

What "good" is accomplished by the existance of this thing that outweighs the incredible harm it causes?

More then 100 million people have died from it.

It is considered to be a loss of function mutation from another bacteria. Bacteria are good and necessary in life.

Funny. I'ld say that a universe that looks like that would rather be an argument against the existence of god(s).

Your assessment of the universe is based on your assumptions and is not an argument against the existence of God.

Hmmm. Are you know saying that in my worldview, no free will exists?
Perhaps you should stop assuming what other people think and just ask them instead.

What you think is only that which a materialistic worldview can provide. If your position is true what you think is of no bearing on what the actual facts might be as they are not due to rationality which needs free will to exist which does not exist in that worldview and neither does rationality. I don't care what you personally think, that is what the worldview requires if it is true.

That doesn't follow. At all.
When a cat decides not to jump straight down from a roof, but instead first jump unto a crate and only then to the ground, it is making a rational decision. It realises that jumping from the roof directly will cause physical harm, so it doesn't do that.

Cause and effect from previous cause and effect from previous cause and effect all the way down.

I'ld call that a rational decision.

I'd call it what it is in your worldview, hard wiring to behave in the way cause and effect makes it behave.

Secondly, intelligence doesn't need to come from intelligence in order to have rationality. If we assume that rationality is a trait from intelligence, then it doesn't matter how intelligence arises. Then to have rationality, it just needs to exist by whatever means.

Provide evidence that intelligence doesn't need to come from intelligence. Provide evidence that rationality can exist if your worldview is true and our brain is just chemical reactions firing by way of the laws of physics and prior cause and effect.

If X is a property of Y, then X exists if Y exists - no matter where Y comes from.

Rather begging the question when you haven't shown that intelligence doesn't need to come from intelligence.

You're trying to slip in your a priori faith based beliefs.

So are you.

Again, that makes no sense. It doesn't follow.
If rationality is a product of a working physical brain, then it doesn't matter where the brain comes from.

Again: If X is a property of Y, then X exists if Y exists - no matter where Y comes from.

Once more, you try to slip in your faith based beliefs.

The irony. You are trying to slip in intelligence when by claiming that we don't need intelligence for intelligence to exist. Where is the evidence for that?

That's not at all what I said.
I merely stated that holding contradictory positions is not rational.
I didn't say anything about where rationality comes from, so I have no clue why you are rambling about that.

And I am saying that you don't use rational thought at all if your position is true.

I suspect it's just another attempt to change the topic and derail.

It has everything to do with the topic and is in no way derailing the topic.

Just like alien abductees "experienced" weird sexual experiments on board of a UFO.
Or so they believe.

The validity or invalidity of other claims does not in anyway provide arguments against the experience of another. Sorry.

The topic of the point. Horrible organisms causing horrible deaths.

What horrible organisms?

Do you even read the quotes you reply to?
I said that in order for the word "morality" to have any meaning at all, one needs to acknowledge the difference between suffering and well-being.

I know what you said. I asked what morality does well-being have?

Acknowledging this difference is a requirement for even understanding what morals are. A premise.

What does well being have to do with a difference? How is well being moral?

If well-being and suffering are understood as being the same thing, what does it mean to call something "immoral"?

A person can claim they have well being all the while killing others. Is that moral? Is that immoral? Why?

I never made such a claim. I see no need to defend claims I never made.
I don't agree at all that we are hard wired to behave in a certain way.

You may not claim it but it is the outcome of your position whether you want to admit it or not.

What good reason is there for cancer?
And since he intervened, in your belief, in the development of humans, why did he not intervene in the development of the black plague? What "good reason" exists for the black plague?

The bacteria that this is caused by is believed to be a loss of function from another bacteria. Bacteria is necessary for life on earth. Cancer has many causes, and many of those are environmental and man made.

Perhaps. And I actually consider that option. Which is why I'm asking all these questions. But you're not making it any easier to understand.
In fact, you're only making it harder.

I am responding concisely and have been consistent. I don't know what else I can do.

First you implied that horrid organisms are an unintended side-effect of the system.
Then you claimed that the horrid organisms were planned for.
Then you claimed again that they are just a consequence of the system.
Then again you claim they are planned.

Straw man. I've presented this very clearly. God is responsible for all of the universe and life included therein. He designed a universe where we could comprehend it. To do so he need to provide a way to show He existed. He needed a system that provided consistency and physical evidence and allowed for life to adapt to the environment. He planned the system, this system necessitated elements that could cause harm to us and other animals but the greater good was His purpose and not the bad.

And so it continues.

It is rather simple and I don't understand your lack of understanding here.

 

[SteveB28]

Are you going to keep trying to twist and misrepresent the truth?

Is it possible for God to make a rock he can not lift? Those are theological questions. I have taken some classes at the Bible college but I have never been to a school of theology. That would be a good question for you to ask one of those guys that has a Phd. God can not do anything contrary to His nature. He has to be true to Himself. So are you wanting to understand the nature of God? He tells us that: "my ways are not your ways". We are to have the Mind of Christ and the Divine thoughts of God. Still we are told: Romans 11:33-36 - "Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!" So God does not make everything known and not everything is searchable.

Oh, the deflection and evasion is epidemic! I did not pose a logical impossibility for you. Quite a simple, realistic scenario. You asserted that cruelty and suffering had to exist, as it would contravene 'free will' if your God eliminated it.

I ask why? I ask, isn't it the case that he already has created such a world, that you people call 'heaven'? Is there not free will in heaven? Is it not free of suffering and harm? Then, is it not the case that, if he had wanted to, he could have instituted the same format on earth?

 

[SteveB28]

How much cruelty and suffering and is it through the natural occurrences or is it due to man's evil? There are two types of suffering and each has it own set of reasons. Where you make your mistake is in assuming that I only have a belief in God's existence. I have proof of His existence in my life. Now I can't share that evidence with you and so it is meaningless to you but to me it provides confirmation for much of what we find in our universe. It is consistent with Christian theology that we are not spared trials and tribulations in this world. The universe is designed so that man can make sense of it and declares the glory of God. That means that there must be a way for the universe to be comprehensible and unchanging. We could make sense of the universe if it were a chaotic mess of ever changing conditions. So the laws of physics make conditions that sometimes harms us. This is a necessary element in the design of the universe and a side effect is that it sometimes affects us negatively. This is true of most naturally occurring mayhem.

So, the 'rabbit hole' of convenience is simply to throw together a shambles of irrelevant statements? "Man's evil" brought about those worms that eat out babies' eyes? But surely not, as you earlier claimed they were part of God's unfathomable 'plan'? And the appearance in our world of these harmful agents has nothing to do with "laws of physics" - it's all biology my dear! But please continue to thrash about - there's a certain entertainment value there.

Do you really want me to go back and gather quotes from you that tell others all the time what they think? I don't have to go to far look at the quote just above: And another way of expressing that is to say - " I have no idea why my God causes/allows so much cruelty and suffering to persist, but I have decided that it must be actually 'good', because it permits me to maintain the belief I have in this god's existence, even though I have no tangible evidence to support such a belief."
You always hold a double standard. What you do is somehow acceptable but how dare anyone do it to you!

Your concept of good or bad is meaningless if it is only subjective. What if no one else empathizes with others who are suffering and harmed and in pain? There are members in a cohesive society that do that harm, give pain to others and who do not operate with respect and care of others so if you get it from society and society has these people in it too how do you explain yours?

And you conveniently overlook the word "consensus" here. People who behave the way you describe clearly stand outside that consensus - they would be considered by the group as not representative of what the group defines as 'good'. Yes, those people exist within societies, but we are critical of their behaviours. And we have a basis for that criticism. We can clearly state why their behaviour is not for the good of the group as a whole. What a shame that you cannot do likewise for the behaviours of your God! What a shame that you see that it's plan contains elements that are harmful and cruel to our community, but are unable to make the same, straightforward assessment of it that you would any other anti-social actor!

 

[Oncedeceived]

So, the 'rabbit hole' of convenience is simply to throw together a shambles of irrelevant statements? "Man's evil" brought about those worms that eat out babies' eyes? But surely not, as you earlier claimed they were part of God's unfathomable 'plan'? And the appearance in our world of these harmful agents has nothing to do with "laws of physics" - it's all biology my dear! But please continue to thrash about - there's a certain entertainment value there.

Straw man my dear man, a straw man.

And you conveniently overlook the word "consensus" here. People who behave the way you describe clearly stand outside that consensus - they would be considered by the group as not representative of what the group defines as 'good'. Yes, those people exist within societies, but we are critical of their behaviours. And we have a basis for that criticism. We can clearly state why their behaviour is not for the good of the group as a whole. What a shame that you cannot do likewise for the behaviours of your God! What a shame that you see that it's plan contains elements that are harmful and cruel to our community, but are unable to make the same, straightforward assessment of it that you would any other anti-social actor!

Yet, in your worldview how do you claim that their behavior is wrong? They are only doing that which they are hard wired to do?

 

[SteveB28]

Straw man my dear man, a straw man.





Yet, in your worldview how do you claim that their behavior is wrong? They are only doing that which they are hard wired to do?

How many times must I repeat the word - "consensus"!? Whether anti-social behaviour is brought about by a 'wiring' problem, or by one of a variety of other causes, we nevertheless have a means by which we can label behaviours as 'good' or 'bad'. As a group, we have the facility to be able to make a judgement on those actions.

Now, secondarily, we can then attribute cause. We may determine that a mental disorder is in play, we may attribute to sociopathy or psychopathy. We may decide that environment has played a part. And so on. Recognition of these factors may then lead us to come to further consensus as to the degree of culpability of those who so behave.

Am I really having to explain this to an adult who, presumably, lives within a community of humans?

 

[Oncedeceived]

How many times must I repeat the word - "consensus"!? Whether anti-social behaviour is brought about by a 'wiring' problem, or by one of a variety of other causes, we nevertheless have a means by which we can label behaviours as 'good' or 'bad'. As a group, we have the facility to be able to make a judgement on those actions.

What means is that? If we have means to do that how do you justify it in your worldview that reduces all behavior to the hard wiring of the brain?

 

[SteveB28]

What means is that? If we have means to do that how do you justify it in your worldview that reduces all behavior to the hard wiring of the brain?

Good grief woman, do you even pay attention to the words another uses, before you rush to your keyboard!? In my very last message I said "a wiring problem, OR A VARIETY OF OTHER CAUSES"! Again, you try to TELL me what my worldview is, when it is clear that you simply aren't listening.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Good grief woman, do you even pay attention to the words another uses, before you rush to your keyboard!? In my very last message I said "a wiring problem, OR A VARIETY OF OTHER CAUSES"! Again, you try to TELL me what my worldview is, when it is clear that you simply aren't listening.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you didn't think that the physical world was all there is.

 

[SteveB28]

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you didn't think that the physical world was all there is.

Madam, you need to educate yourself.......quickly. " Reduces all behaviour to the hard wiring of the brain" does NOT equate with " the physical world was all there is." There are other aspects of human behaviour, within the purview of "the physical world", that go beyond "hard wiring". The impact of environment, for example, being one of them.

But this is yet another attempt to dodge difficult questions isn't it? You have staring you squarely in the face your admission that you believe your God included in a 'plan' for this planet, agents which cause gratuitous suffering. You nevertheless assert that this God MUST be 'good' in all that he does. You have, up to now, demonstrated a complete inability to reconcile these two positions - other than by running from them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Madam, you need to educate yourself.......quickly. " Reduces all behaviour to the hard wiring of the brain" does NOT equate with " the physical world was all there is." There are other aspects of human behaviour, within the purview of "the physical world", that go beyond "hard wiring". The impact of environment, for example, being one of them.

But this is yet another attempt to dodge difficult questions isn't it? You have staring you squarely in the face your admission that you believe your God included in a 'plan' for this planet agents which cause gratuitous suffering. You nevertheless assert that this God MUST be 'good' in all that he does. You have, up to now, demonstrated a complete inability to reconcile these two positions - other than by running from them.

Don't falsely accuse me of something when you don't know my motivations. It is reasonable to assume that when God created the universe with physical laws and consistency and intelligent beings to comprehend the universe, there is by necessity certain elements that arise that can be harmful to them. Nothing provides support for an uncaring, unloving and mean God. It shows a God that wishes to have us understand the universe we find ourselves in and that wants us to learn to trust and love Him.

 

[Gene2memE]

First of all, pointing out that your argument is based on assumptions is not a straw man argument.

Firstly, could you point out where I made the presupposition that "pain is bad", or that "God created everything ex nihilo"?

If you can't, then you are not attempting to counter my actual argument. As I referenced neither pain nor any form of creation in my response, nor did the video, then you appear to be arguing against a case that I made no attempt to make - a textbook definition of a strawman.

Second, there are multiple competing theories for the so-called "problem" of evil. One of the simplest explanations is that evil does not exist, per se. Just as darkness does not exist but rather is the absence of light, so too evil is just the absence of good.

Evil is a conceptual notion. So is good. We judge what they are, bases on the attitudes and actions of individuals, and their consequences. Evil cannot be the lack of something, as it is the result of positive action, or even deliberate inaction.

What makes you think that suffering is unnecessary? Explain how free will can truly be free will when you place limits on what someone can do?

Unnecessary suffering is misfortune that serves no purpose. A god of the omnis could have created a world where there is still free will and no unncessary suffering beyond that induced by our own actions. According to your religion though, it didn't, and somehow the fault lies with people.

Free will is never truly "free", there are always limitations - historical, cultural, genetic, psychological, situational, physical - that put borders on human actions and decision making.

What good is a limited SmartPhone? None at all. Yours has limits. I'll take it off your hands.

No-one suggested that a physical item is not bounded in some way. A smartphone is a device operating in and limited by the physical characteristics of the universe. Why then, should it have no limits? A tool is still valuable even if it has a single function. Just because a hammer cant be used to programme in C++, doesn't mean its not useful as a hammer.

Comparing the god of the omnis to a smart-phone is one of the less intelligent things I've seen written on this forum. And that's saying something.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Evil cannot be the lack of something, as it is the result of positive action, or even deliberate inaction.

There are sins of commission and sins of omission.

Anglican Confession for Morning Prayer
This prayer, from the service of Morning Prayer in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, is read aloud by the officiant and all members of the congregation near the beginning of the service, and is followed by a prayer of absolution. The service of Morning Prayer was traditionally said by all clergy, every day and often by themselves, as part of their "daily office." Many clergy no longer maintain this discipline.

Almighty and most merciful Father, we have erred and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep, we have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts, we have offended against thy holy laws, we have left undone those things which we ought to have done, and we have done those things which we ought not to have done; and there is no health in us. But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders. Spare thou them, O God, which confess their faults. Restore thou them that are penitent; According to thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesus our Lord. And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake, That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life, To the glory of thy holy Name. Amen.

 

[SteveB28]

Don't falsely accuse me of something when you don't know my motivations.

You aren't accused. I merely presented YOUR admissions stated earlier.

It is reasonable to assume that when God created

Why is it reasonable? How are you using reason and rational thought here? You have repeatedly admitted that you have no evidence for your assertions, only personal testimony and opinion. How do they embody reason?

the universe with physical laws and consistency and intelligent beings to comprehend the universe, there is by necessity certain elements that arise that can be harmful to them.

Why is it necessary? I have already demonstrated to another that it would be perfectly possible for your God to create a world free of pain, without forfeiting free will.

Nothing provides support for an uncaring, unloving and mean God.

Well, except for that nagging problem of his plan ncluding creatures like the aforementioned worm!

 

[Gene2memE]

There are sins of commission and sins of omission.

Hence the qualifier for inaction.

Almighty and most merciful Father, we have erred and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep, we have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts, we have offended against thy holy laws, we have left undone those things which we ought to have done, and we have done those things which we ought not to have done; and there is no health in us. But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders. Spare thou them, O God, which confess their faults. Restore thou them that are penitent; According to thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesus our Lord. And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake, That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life, To the glory of thy holy Name. Amen.

It's exactly this sort of thing that started me along my intellectual path away from theism. That high-low, worthy-unworthy, healthy-sick mentality was distasteful to me then and is almost unbearable to me now. The 'unworthy sinner' doctrine of fault is the sort of inherent victim mentality that is an anathema to a healthy psychological view on the world.

 

[joshua 1 9]

It's exactly this sort of thing that started me along my intellectual path away from theism.

I left the Anglican Church but that has to do with people not God. I am sure you could find a church that has the intellectual integrity that your demanding.

 

[High Fidelity]

Mod

The thread has been closed permanently.

There are far too many General Apologetics violations -- A subject that is not allowed to be discussed on CF.

Mod​