Why does evolution threaten God?

[Doveaman]

Not really. What I am suggesting about omnipotence is not a matter of multiple possible outcomes existing in different universes. I am saying that if true omnipotence is real, then all outcomes would be possible in ONE universe for the omnipotent being.

An omnipotent being would also be an all wise being, therefore He wouldn't waste time doing stupid and unnecessary things just to satisfy the stupidity in men.

Remember, with great power comes great responsibility, not great stupidity.

 

[SkyWriting]

Not really. What I am suggesting about omnipotence is not a matter of multiple possible outcomes existing in different universes. I am saying that if true omnipotence is real, then all outcomes would be possible in ONE universe for the omnipotent being.

Since an omnipotent being would be in control of all the various universes, then right after you blurted this out:
Jesus looked at them intently and said, "Humanly speaking, it is impossible. But with God everything is possible."

 

[SkyWriting]

Not really. What I am suggesting about omnipotence is not a matter of multiple possible outcomes existing in different universes. I am saying that if true omnipotence is real, then all outcomes would be possible in ONE universe for the omnipotent being.

Again. Its a logic/math problem.
Two sets that are exclusive of the same defined items
cannot contain both items.

 

[SkyWriting]

I can't think of a worse possible insult than to be confused with that despicable Poe.

Hate is not the opposite of love.
Apathy is.
Love/hate/lying are on one end of the spectrum.
Apathy is on the other.
Perhaps I struck a nerve too close to home.

 

[sandwiches]

Again. Its a logic/math problem.
Two sets that are exclusive of the same defined items
cannot contain both items.

You say this right after YOU blurted this out:
Jesus looked at them intently and said, "Humanly speaking, it is impossible. But with God everything is possible."
The omnipotent god you imagine is very limited by your own logic, I'm afraid.

 

[The Lady Kate]

An omnipotent being would also be an all wise being,

Actually no... power and wisdom are two different things... one does not guarantee the other.

 

[sandwiches]

Actually no... power and wisdom are two different things... one does not guarantee the other.

Well, an OMNIpotent being would able to grant himself all wisdom and knowledge.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Well, an OMNIpotent being would able to grant himself all wisdom and knowledge.

But it's not a given that such a being would do so.

 

[sandwiches]

But it's not a given that such a being would do so.

Very true! I hadn't thought of that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Very true! I hadn't thought of that.

scientia potentia est

 

[sandwiches]

scientia potentia est

Indeed. Knowledge is definitely power.

As a geek I prefer the phrase: "Ex astris scientia."

 

[Split Rock]

I don't agree that creationist forces facts into molds. I see the facts that fit, and find that only the opinions or conclusions of the non-believing scientist fall outside of scriptural boundaries.

The physical evidence simply does not point to a young earth, or a separate or unique origin for the human species. In order to conclude otherwise, one must force square pegs into round holes. No one concudes that the earth is 6,000 years old by looking at the physical evidence... no one.

That's not a worthless argument. You are suggesting that Darwin altered reality with his publishings and that before him and his writings, truth was not to be found. Hogwash. There is no merit to that logic. Darwin's writings did not even cover new ground. Darwin simply applied a geological theory of gradualism that was all the rage in his time, to the field of biology.

Before Darwin, there was no known mechanism for nature to use to produce a species. Yes, the idea of evolution had been kicked about, but there was no mechanism. WIthout such a mechanism, Paley's watchmaker argument is actually quite persuasive. Once a mechanism had been found, this became a deal-changer. So yes, in a sense, Darwin did change the landscape of the discussion on the origin of biological species.

It's only the theory of Evolution as a mechanism of abiogenesis, that many Christians object to.

No, it is also as a mechanism of the origin of the human species that many Christians object to. Most creationists in fact don't really care much where bunnies or horses come from. They really only care about where humans come from.

 

[AV1611VET]

As a geek I prefer the phrase: "Ex astris scientia."

 

[SkyWriting]

You say this right after YOU blurted this out:
Jesus looked at them intently and said, "Humanly speaking, it is impossible. But with God everything is possible."
The omnipotent god you imagine is very limited by your own logic, I'm afraid.

No. That is correct. We cannot walk with God in heaven, nor can this creation exist in God's realm. The two have exclusive differences.

God did plan to bridge the gap. But for humans to exist with God we have to be reborn first. Yes, the perfect cannot exist with the corrupt.

- So the corrupt will be destroyed. The world will be made new.
- "Humanly speaking, it is impossible. But with God everything is possible."

 

[corvus_corax]

An omnipotent being would also be an all wise being

Incorrect
Power, whether limited or "all encompassing" does not imply "all-wise" or even all-intelligent.
Essentially, your statement implies that with more and more and more power (reaching infinity) comes more and more and more wisdom (or perhaps intelligence), again, reaching infinity.
The two are not necessarily connected.
A crane with a 30 ton weight limit (MUCH more powerful than a single human) is neither intelligent nor wise.
A nuclear bomb (very powerful) has no wisdom or intelligence.
Heck, I know a bodybuilder who is a brown belt in Karate....quite frankly he is MUCH more powerful than I am. Yet he doesn't understand either theory of relativity, despite our frequent talks and the books I've loaned him (A Brief History of Time, The Universe in a Nutshell, E=MC2, etc, all simple reads). Additionally, he lacks what I would call "wisdom", seeing as how he can't even understand why his wife gets ticked off at him (despite the fact that she has told me why, and I have explained it to him).
Power (even escalated to "Omni" power) does not necessarily equate to wisdom or intelligence, despite your wrongly stated assertion otherwise.

Remember, with great power comes great responsibility, not great stupidity.

And yet Spider Man (despite his power and formidable intelligence) STILL managed to kill Gwen Stacy due to a simple moment of hasty stupidity.
No, sorry, your equation of power=wisdom (or intelligence) does not work.

 

[SkyWriting]

The physical evidence simply does not point to a young earth, or a separate or unique origin for the human species. In order to conclude otherwise, one must force square pegs into round holes. No one concludes that the earth is 6,000 years old by looking at the physical evidence... no one.

I believe some people have. I'm a 6 day Creationist. I haven't either.

Before Darwin, there was no known mechanism for nature to use to produce a species. Yes, the idea of evolution had been kicked about, but there was no mechanism. Without such a mechanism, Paley's watchmaker argument is actually quite persuasive. Once a mechanism had been found, this became a deal-changer. So yes, in a sense, Darwin did change the landscape of the discussion on the origin of biological species.

Darwin observed that natural selection took place but he drew no (correct) conclusions of what the mechanism was or how it functioned. He just observed that it did.

No, it is also as a mechanism of the origin of the human species that many Christians object to. Most creationists in fact don't really care much where bunnies or horses come from. They really only care about where humans come from.

I must agree with that.

 

[sandwiches]

No. That is correct. We cannot walk with God in heaven, nor can this creation exist in God's realm. The two have exclusive differences.

God did plan to bridge the gap. But for humans to exist with God we have to be reborn first. Yes, the perfect cannot exist with the corrupt.

- So the corrupt will be destroyed. The world will be made new.
- "Humanly speaking, it is impossible. But with God everything is possible."

Sorry but we're not talking about ourselves. We're talking about you putting limitations on a supposedly omnipotent being. Again, if he's truly omnipotent, he'd be able to do even what's illogical or impossible.

 

[sandwiches]

Incorrect
Power, whether limited or "all encompassing" does not imply "all-wise" or even all-intelligent.
Essentially, your statement implies that with more and more and more power (reaching infinity) comes more and more and more wisdom (or perhaps intelligence), again, reaching infinity.
The two are not necessarily connected.
A crane with a 30 ton weight limit (MUCH more powerful than a single human) is neither intelligent nor wise.
A nuclear bomb (very powerful) has no wisdom or intelligence.
Heck, I know a bodybuilder who is a brown belt in Karate....quite frankly he is MUCH more powerful than I am. Yet he doesn't understand either theory of relativity, despite our frequent talks and the books I've loaned him (A Brief History of Time, The Universe in a Nutshell, E=MC2, etc, all simple reads). Additionally, he lacks what I would call "wisdom", seeing as how he can't even understand why his wife gets ticked off at him (despite the fact that she has told me why, and I have explained it to him).
Power (even escalated to "Omni" power) does not necessarily equate to wisdom or intelligence, despite your wrongly stated assertion otherwise.

And yet Spider Man (despite his power and formidable intelligence) STILL managed to kill Gwen Stacy due to a simple moment of hasty stupidity.
No, sorry, your equation of power=wisdom (or intelligence) does not work.

Now, to be fair, I think you're referring to a different kind of 'power' than what is commonly referred to with the word 'omnipotent.' You're talking about physical strength and when people say 'all-powerful' or 'omnipotent,' they usually refer to 'all-capable' or having the capacity to do anything and everything.

 

[corvus_corax]

Now, to be fair, I think you're referring to a different kind of 'power' than what is commonly referred to with the word 'omnipotent.' You're talking about physical strength and when people say 'all-powerful' or 'omnipotent,' they usually refer to 'all-capable' or having the capacity to do anything and everything.

What I'm actually talking about is actual power, or in this case "all power".

To be fair, from my POV, "all power" includes being able to do anything that requires power (e.g. energy, kinetic energy, etc). For example, no matter how much "power" one has (again, e.g. "all power" for this discussion) one cannot create a 2 dimensional triangle (with three corners) that is also a 2 dimensional circle. "Power" does not allow that.

I would submit that the "common" definition of omnipotence which you supplied is actually incorrect, given the roots of the word and what it actually means and implies.

For example, can any kind of "power" (physical, kinetic, electric, nuclear, etc etc etc) make 2+2= 100,349,201,028.29576333333333333 (in base 10)?

"Power" does not necessarily allow one to create in oneself "wisdom" either. "All capable" or "Being able to do anything" is , IMO, an abuse of the term "All powerful" or "Infinitely powerful". Just my opinion, that's all.

 

[sandwiches]

What I'm actually talking about is actual power, or in this case "all power".

To be fair, from my POV, "all power" includes being able to do anything that requires power (e.g. energy, kinetic energy, etc). For example, no matter how much "power" one has (again, e.g. "all power" for this discussion) one cannot create a 2 dimensional triangle (with three corners) that is also a 2 dimensional circle. "Power" does not allow that.

I still think your definition is not the common one nor the one referred to by most of the people here.
From Wikipedia:

Between people of different faiths, or indeed between people of the same faith, the term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. A deity is able to do anything that is logically possible for it to do[4].
2. A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do[5].
3. A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
4. Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.[6]
5. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan.
6. A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible, i.e., pure agency.

None of those have anything to do with power in the physics sense, as you seem to use it.

I would submit that the "common" definition of omnipotence which you supplied is actually incorrect, given the roots of the word and what it actually means and implies.

For example, can any kind of "power" (physical, kinetic, electric, nuclear, etc etc etc) make 2+2= 100,349,201,028.29576333333333333 (in base 10)?

"Power" does not necessarily allow one to create in oneself "wisdom" either. "All capable" or "Being able to do anything" is , IMO, an abuse of the term "All powerful" or "Infinitely powerful". Just my opinion, that's all.

Not to start another semantics debate but, regardless of the root or etymology of the word, I doubt most people in this thread or in general use the word in the way you described.

Also, after reading up and thinking a bit more about it, I think your definition of 'power' is too limited and incorrectly used in this context. From reference.com:

pow·er
   /ˈpaʊər/ Show Spelled[pou-er] Show IPA
–noun
1.
ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something.
2.
political or national strength: the balance of power in Europe.
3.
great or marked ability to do or act; strength; might; force.
4.
the possession of control or command over others; authority; ascendancy: power over men's minds.
5.
political ascendancy or control in the government of a country, state, etc.: They attained power by overthrowing the legal government.
6.
legal ability, capacity, or authority: the power of attorney.
7.
delegated authority; authority granted to a person or persons in a particular office or capacity: the powers of the president.
8.
a document or written statement conferring legal authority.
9.
a person or thing that possesses or exercises authority or influence.
10.
a state or nation having international authority or influence: The great powers held an international conference.
11.
a military or naval force: The spanish Armada was a mighty power.
12.
Often, powers. a deity; divinity: the heavenly powers.
13.
powers, Theology . an order of angels. Compare angel ( def. 1 ) .
14.
Dialect . a large number or amount: There's a power of good eatin' at the church social.
15.
Physics .
a.
work done or energy transferred per unit of time. Symbol: P
b.
the time rate of doing work.
16.
mechanical energy as distinguished from hand labor: a loom driven by power.
17.
a particular form of mechanical or physical energy: hydroelectric power.
18.
energy, force, or momentum: The door slammed shut, seemingly under its own power.
19.
Mathematics .
a.
the product obtained by multiplying a quantity by itself one or more times: The third power of 2 is 8.
b.
(of a number x ) a number whose logarithm is a times the logarithm of x (and is called the a th power of x ). Symbolically, y = x a is a number that satisfies the equation log y = a log x.
c.
the exponent of an expression, as a in x a .
d.
cardinal number ( def. 2 ) .
20.
Optics .
a.
the magnifying capacity of a microscope, telescope, etc., expressed as the ratio of the diameter of the image to the diameter of the object. Compare magnification ( def. 2 ) .
b.
the reciprocal of the focal length of a lens.

I highlighted the usage of the word 'power' in the most commonly used context of the word 'all powerful.'

Even the root word in Latin 'potens' means:

potent Look up potent at Dictionary.com
c.1500, from L. potentem (nom. potens) "powerful," prp. of *potere "be powerful," from potis "powerful, able, capable" (cognate with Skt. patih "master, husband," Gk. posis, Lith. patis "husband"). Meaning "having sexual power" is first recorded 1899.

Thus 'omnipotence' being 'capable of everything.'