Why does evolution threaten God?

[lucaspa]

Back to the OP- Evolution (and the scientific theory of evolution) does not threaten any deity. Anyone who says otherwise LIMITS their deity, given that said deity is omnipotent and omniscient (what I like to call "GodinMYbox&quot. It is simply religious BELIEF that is threatened by such, NOT an actual GOD. Really, what can threaten an omnipotent and omniscient GOD?

Well, both omnipotence and omniscience can be threatened. Omnipotence is threatened by such questions as "Can God create a rock He cannot lift?"

Omniscience went out the window with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

So now we have a different question: does a being have to be omnipotent and omniscient to be God?

Put another way: just how powerful and knowing does a being have to be in order to qualify as God?

Now, I like what you said about people limiting their deity. But how do creationists limit God? Do they limit God's power and knowledge? Not really.

Instead, I submit, they limit God in the way they allow God to create. For creationists, God can only create one way. If creation didn't happen the way creationists say it happened, then they think God didn't create.

 

[Doveaman]

Omniscience went out the window with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

The only persons Uncertain here is Heisenberg and those who follow his Principle.

So now we have a different question: does a being have to be omnipotent and omniscient to be God?

That's a question only God can answer. What we do know is what God said of Himself:

"I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please." - Isa 46:9-10.

When referring to God's power to know and God's power to do, your Heisenberg Uncertainty nonsense has no relevance.

Put another way: just how powerful and knowing does a being have to be in order to qualify as God?

Being God is not something you qualify for. Either you are God or you are not. And if you are God then "all things are possible." - Matt 19:26.

For creationists, God can only create one way. If creation didn't happen the way creationists say it happened, then they think God didn't create.

Total rubbish.

 

[Gracchus]

The only persons Uncertain here is Heisenberg and those who follow his Principle.
That's a question only God can answer. What we do know is what God said of Himself:

To be precise, we know what someone said that God said.

When referring to God's power to know and God's power to do, your Heisenberg Uncertainty nonsense has no relevance.
.

Whatever God is certain of, you have no justification for your own certainty. That is arrogance. That is hubris.

God's truth is written in a reality that cannot be counterfeited: The universe itself, the stones and the stars. Your Bible is the work of fallible, ignorant men.

 

[sandwiches]

God's truth is written in a reality that cannot be counterfeited: The universe itself, the stones and the stars. Your Bible is the work of fallible, ignorant men.

It's always been odd to me how many people put more faith on a book written by humans than what is real and should be evidence of what their deity actually did.

 

[Cabal]

The only persons Uncertain here is Heisenberg and those who follow his Principle.

Thank you for advertising your total ignorance of science yet again

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, both omnipotence and omniscience can be threatened. Omnipotence is threatened by such questions as "Can God create a rock He cannot lift?"

Not a threat....just a joke.

Omniscience went out the window with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

You think that because man is not informed then God cannot know. Odd you think we have that effect on God.

So now we have a different question: does a being have to be omnipotent and omniscient to be God? Put another way: just how powerful and knowing does a being have to be in order to qualify as God?

They are qualities God has no matter your judgment. lol

Now, I like what you said about people limiting their deity. But how do creationists limit God? Do they limit God's power and knowledge? Not really. Instead, I submit, they limit God in the way they allow God to create. For creationists, God can only create one way. If creation didn't happen the way creationists say it happened, then they think God didn't create.

We have very little information on the actual event outside of God's word on it. History is hard to recreate.

 

[SkyWriting]

It's always been odd to me how many people put more faith on a book written by humans than what is real and should be evidence of what their deity actually did.

No other book explains what is real so well. That's why I chose it over other ideas. Or I thought it was me anyway.

 

[dad]

AV made the claims:
1. He was not anti-science but rejected "historical evolution".
2. When science "messes with the Bible my fangs come out".

So this is to the creationists: why do you think evolution threatens God? Why do you think other scientific theories -- Relativity, chemistry, cell theory, optics, etc. -- do not threaten God?

It doesn't. No more than an ice cube threatens the sun.

 

[SkyWriting]

Whatever God is certain of, you have no justification for your own certainty. That is arrogance. That is hubris.

But you don't know that. Note that three fingers are pointing back at you.

God's truth is written in a reality that cannot be counterfeited: The universe itself, the stones and the stars. Your Bible is the work of fallible, ignorant men.

But God-Breathed none the less.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Well, both omnipotence and omniscience can be threatened. Omnipotence is threatened by such questions as "Can God create a rock He cannot lift?"

I remember someone (I forget who) who tried to take on this one by explaining that if we accept that God is omnipotent, then "a rock He cannot lift" simply cannot exist. It's like a square circle... it cannot happen.

The end result of this was that this guy ended up redefining (or perhaps clarifying) the definition of omnipotence from "the ability to do absolutely anything" to something like "the ability to do anything that can be done in this universe."

Or something to that effect... in any case, if you accept it, then the "rock He can't lift" argument doesn't threaten His omnipotence at all.

 

[SkyWriting]

Did you read my post correctly?

That would take a huge change in attitude.

 

[SkyWriting]

... Do you absolutely need the Bible to be a Christian?

Nope.

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

 

[corvus_corax]

Well, both omnipotence and omniscience can be threatened. Omnipotence is threatened by such questions as "Can God create a rock He cannot lift?"

Possibly threatened.
However, such a question seems to be a logical fallacy according to some, quite like God creating a triangle circle (unless God decides to do away with 2 dimensional geometry and logic).
Can God create a burrito so hot that He can't eat it?

Omniscience went out the window with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Do you really believe that the Christian God cannot determine velocity, location, and (possible) mass of a subatomic particle at the same moment of (say) less than Planck time?
Yes, I said less than

So now we have a different question: does a being have to be omnipotent and omniscient to be God?

My answer would be "No". I don't think (and I'm no bible scholar) that the Biblical God even describes himself in both of those ways.
I'm probably incorrect on that point however.

Put another way: just how powerful and knowing does a being have to be in order to qualify as God?

Should we go to the Philosophy sub forum?
Many Christians would say "Omnipotent and Omniscient", which seem to be almost contradictions to me, but again, that's almost a Philosophy forum subject.

Now, I like what you said about people limiting their deity. But how do creationists limit God? Do they limit God's power and knowledge? Not really.
Instead, I submit, they limit God in the way they allow God to create. For creationists, God can only create one way. If creation didn't happen the way creationists say it happened, then they think God didn't create.

(emphasis mine)
Quite correct
And the Literalistic Creationists do limit their perception of their deity in that way (with slight variations).

 

[sandwiches]

I remember someone (I forget who) who tried to take on this one by explaining that if we accept that God is omnipotent, then "a rock He cannot lift" simply cannot exist. It's like a square circle... it cannot happen.

The end result of this was that this guy ended up redefining (or perhaps clarifying) the definition of omnipotence from "the ability to do absolutely anything" to something like "the ability to do anything that can be done in this universe."

Or something to that effect... in any case, if you accept it, then the "rock He can't lift" argument doesn't threaten His omnipotence at all.

That redefinition changes the entire meaning of the word from 'being able to do ANYTHING' to 'being able to do ALMOST ANYTHING.'

To me, if true omnipotence existed it would be illogical, which I know isn't popular against most theists view of God. In other words, God would indeed be able to make a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift it AND he would still be able to lift it. Both states, simultaneously.

 

[Michael]

That redefinition changes the entire meaning of the word from 'being able to do ANYTHING' to 'being able to do ALMOST ANYTHING.'

To me, if true omnipotence existed it would be illogical, which I know isn't popular against most theists view of God. In other words, God would indeed be able to make a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift it AND he would still be able to lift it. Both states, simultaneously.

IMO that omni-concept is essentially a meaningless argument. Would it really matter if God himself were limited to the laws of physics as we understand them, yet on a scale so massive it's "nearly' omnipotent from our perspective? How powerful and capable does God have to be to be considered "God"?

 

[AV1611VET]

To me, if true omnipotence existed it would be illogical, which I know isn't popular against most theists view of God.

I've only been saying that for four years now: 223.

In other words, God would indeed be able to make a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift it AND he would still be able to lift it. Both states, simultaneously.

Metherion has got you beat on this one: 41.

I've said it before, too.

God would make a rock so big He couldn't lift it.

Then later, He would simply pick it up and set it aside.

 

[driewerf]

Now this is very interesting. There are Protestant denominations that also accept evolution: Presbyterian Church USA, many Lutheran denominations, Episcopalians, United Church of Christ, etc.

Perhaps these denominations have more than just "the bible left". They certainly don't have all the things you listed for Catholicism.

So let's say that people who "have only the Bible left" will think that evolution threatens God. What else would Christians have if they say the Bible is not "inerrant". Can there still be truth in the Bible if it is not "inerrant"? Do you absolutely need the Bible to be a Christian?

I think "true" or "not true" are categories that don't apply to the bible. The bible was written by the the jews at a time that the scientific outlook was still very poor. They tried to make sense of a world they didn't understand and that was very hostile. (To mention just one aspect of this hostile world: compare the risk of dying for a woman during birth in a underdevelopped country with that in an industrial country. And even the underdevelopped countries are better than the primitive conditions in which the jews lived then.)
We can read the bible, to try to appreciate how primitive people see the world, but we can't apply criteria like true or not true to this.

 

[Dirteyphil]

.

 

[SkyWriting]

That redefinition changes the entire meaning of the word from 'being able to do ANYTHING' to 'being able to do ALMOST ANYTHING.'

To me, if true omnipotence existed it would be illogical, which I know isn't popular against most theists view of God. In other words, God would indeed be able to make a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift it AND he would still be able to lift it. Both states, simultaneously.

In that case, it can be covered by the scientific based multiverse hypotheses.
So creationists can thank science for getting us out of that very sticky theological problem. Phyeeeeww. That was a close one.

 

[SkyWriting]

I think "true" or "not true" are categories that don't apply to the bible. The bible was written by the the jews at a time that the scientific outlook was still very poor. they tried to make sense of a world they didn't understand and that was very hostile. (To mention just one aspect of this hostiel world: compare the risk of dying for a woman during birth in a underdevelopped country with that in an industrial country. And even the underdevelopped countries are better than the primitive conditions in which the jews lived then.)
We can read the bible, to try to appreciate how primitive people see the world, but we can't apply criteria like true or not true to this.

They were about 10 times as advanced then as we are today.
Fewer ipods and cell phones, but intellectually far beyond any living
person today.