What if it was created by God to evolve?

[Dan From Smithville]

I’m not going to reply to each in vidual commenting on my “Cambrian“ post, too many.

Let me say this:

When you Google ‘Cambrian’ along with ‘ “sudden appearance” ‘ in quotations, you’ll get so many sites. (‘Cambrian “abrupt appearance” ‘ will also work, and add even more, )

“Sudden” does not mean rapid. It means “immediate”.

The reason for the 10 to 15 million years, was the time for these life forms to populate the oceans… indeed, they’re found just about everywhere.

But of these thousands of species, each one “appeared suddenly.” With no obvious precursors.

I’m tired of people misrepresenting the evidence, in an effort to downplay its significance.

Why do you keep ignoring rational explanations provided to you countless times?

Why do you reject the evidence you claim comes from God?

Why do you suddenly feel you have the expertise of scientists that have spent their lives studying these things?

Aren't you misrepresenting the evidence by declaring that the metaphorical use of language is a literal use when it is not?

Can you show us that you have not had this explained to you numerous times ad nauseum?

 

[YoursTrue]

Why are some defamatory and insulting questions allowed?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I was trying to keep my position as a moderator out of the discussion and keep the discourse to common courtesy.

But since you ask, your imposition definitely skirted violating Rule 1.

My personal view is that others have the right to ask questions within the scope of the rules, but there is no obligation to answer those questions. Freedom of speech is freedom to withhold speaking as well.

If I ask questions of someone or engage them and they ignore me, I don't go into a months long tantrum about it trying to force others to my will against their own. Or start grousing about it like a petulant child. But that's me and the values I embrace.

It seems like the real question from what I gather from one side of the conversation is "Why can't I force others to do what I want". And I believe the answer has been well-provided here and by the Constitution.

I don't see any point in engaging people where the evidence says to me they are not honest and only playing a game for some personal agenda or out of spite. That sort of thing doesn't fit with my interpretation of Christianity anyway.

On a personal note, I think that a lot of this arises from those that demand that their interpretation of religious texts be the only viable interpretation and those with other interpretations threaten that view and must be stopped. Again, that is just me and my opinion.

 

[YoursTrue]

My personal view is that others have the right to ask questions within the scope of the rules, but there is no obligation to answer those questions. Freedom of speech is freedom to withhold speaking as well.

If I ask questions of someone or engage them and they ignore me, I don't go into a months long tantrum about it trying to force others to my will against their own. Or start grousing about it like a petulant child. But that's me and the values I embrace.

It seems like the real question from what I gather from one side of the conversation is "Why can't I force others to do what I want". And I believe the answer has been well-provided here and by the Constitution.

I don't see any point in engaging people where the evidence says to me they are not honest and only playing a game for some personal agenda or out of spite. That sort of thing doesn't fit with my interpretation of Christianity anyway.

On a personal note, I think that a lot of this arises from those that demand that their interpretation of religious texts be the only viable interpretation and those with other interpretations threaten that view and must be stopped. Again, that is just me and my opinion.

If I MAY, I think you're wrong on a few counts here. If you'd like me to elaborate, I'll be happy to. But if not, I will respect your desire to not answer.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why are some defamatory and insulting questions allowed?

We are continually seeing faith-based posters taking offense at being disagreed with. Who do you think is being defamed? You? Your god? Believers in general?

yes God is still absolutely omnipotent. But God is not ONLY omnipotent. God has other qualities which produce the necessity for chaos in the material world. If God is absolutely perfect and completely unique, then nothing else will be absolutely perfect. Therefore anything which God creates will be imperfect, and that is why chaos is necessary in the material world. All of this presumes God exists and creates per the question you asked.

If you presume god as a premise, the rest of what follows is only of interest to those who share your premise.

Evolution still uses the gods of dice and cards.

Science has no use for gods. It leaves that to the faithful.

Whims of the gods and chance is not cause and affect

Once again, science leaves gods to those who can find a use for them. If you insist on framing science as religion, you're comments become uninteresting. And what do you think that habit accomplishes? Does this mean anything to you? It does to me. It happens to be about atheism rather than science and religion specifically, but the point obtains, mutatis mutandis:

"I always flinch in embarrassment for the believer who trots out, 'Atheism is just another kind of faith,' because it's a tacit admission that taking claims on faith is a silly thing to do. When you've succumbed to arguing that the opposition is just as misguided as you are, it's time to take a step back and rethink your attitudes." - Amanda Marcotte

should we worship a hammer and seek its council?

Worship is beneath the dignity of free citizens. I don't go beyond respect and admiration for anybody or anything. Why would I?

Until you can explain where random comes from, evolution remains built on an imaginary foundation premise

Your rule, not mine or academia's. And random is your word, not mine. Nothing above the scale of subatomic world is thought or known to be indeterministic.

 

[dybmh]

If you presume god as a premise, the rest of what follows is only of interest to those who share your premise

The post I replied to presumed god. That's twice you have failed reading comprehension. 15 demerits.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm copying that so I remember it when someone personally attacks me. Thank you.

Okay, you did not need to copy it. It is one of the rules of forum. Do you need a link to them?

At any rate you should remember that corrections are not personal attacks. Observations are not personal attacks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why are some defamatory and insulting questions allowed?

If you are talking about the previous post none of those questions were defamatory or insulting. They were accurate.

 

[Audie]

If you are talking about the previous post none of those questions were defamatory or insulting. They were accurate.

Claiming "insults "
It's just a shoddy grab for the high ground

 

[shunyadragon]

It doesn't look like you saw the post I replied to. It was commenting about cancer and genetic defects. And please understand, I didn't say the material world was ONLY chaos. So, yeah, it's orderly. But there is an inherent chaos INCLUDED.

I disagree with this old use of chaos and randomness terminology. I addressed this in a previous thread in detail. Yes, science still misuses randomness and chaos terminology, You, unfortunately, indicated this concept plays a major role and I disagree.

I will address this further it is late.

 

[dybmh]

I disagree with this old use of chaos and randomness terminology. I addressed this in a previous thread in detail. Yes, science still misuses randomness and chaos terminology, You, unfortunately, indicated this concept plays a major role and I disagree.

I will address this further it is late.

Major? I said it is included.

None the less if there are better words and concepts, I am happy to learn and use them, if they fit. thank you, good night.

 

[Brian2]

God abuses his authority, and violates many moral values. The Noah Flood is an example (of course it's a myth, but you believers take it all seriously, yes?).

Noah's flood just shows the authority of God and His concern for the world.
Also consider that God gives everyone a final judgement based on a personal assessment.

Of course you have to say this, you have to agree with the monster God with a track record of doing violence against the innocent.

So you see God, the creator and owner of all things as just another human with no authority over anything.

Then why did God create evil in the first place? What's taking the "all-powerful" God so long?

God created us with the potential to choose to do the wrong things. iow we are more than robots.
He's waiting for more people to come to Him and in the meantime He is putting up with all the evil in the world.

 

[Brian2]

That's a logical conclusion. If God is beyond our understanding, then anything we say about him/her/it is likely to be incorrect.

It is up to God to reveal Himself to us.

I don't want to use the word "lie", which suggests something that is deliberately misleading. Mistaken perhaps?

No, lying is an appropriate word whether you want to use the word or not.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Am I allowed to say or ask something here?

Yes, please!

Is this not called “religiousForums”?
But when you ask someone how or why they believe a certain way in a religious context, they get offended?! Asking them to support their religious view, on a religious discussion site no less, is apparently inappropriate.

I’m gonna try to answer a few of these questions; a couple don’t make sense, to me:

Why do you claim that you believe God created everything and then go to such tremendous lengths to reject that creation?

I don’t understand what you are saying here.

Why do you claim that God gave us free will, but have embraced an ideology that doesn't allow the practice. If you said that you chose to recognize the evidence of reality, you risk being shunned for it. How is that practicing what Christ preached?

Yes, I claim God has given humans free will, but I’ve “embraced an ideology that doesn’t allow” free will?

People can choose to break all kinds of laws - that’s free will - but there are still repercussions for doing it. (It is obvious from the numbers of people in prison.) See Galatians 6:7.

As far as “evidence of reality,” I’m quite sure I’ve already found it, aka, spiritual truth. And how it combines the Bible (& the worship of Jehovah) with science, three subjects I care a lot about!
“What Christ preached”? Did Jesus accept the actions of everybody? No. Matthew 7:21-23

Why do you think that people that don't embrace the ideology you practice are no better than, murderers, rapists and fiends?

What?! I don’t!
Where did this come from?

Why do you see demons everywhere, but remain unable to show others what you see is real?

You mean, see, as in see their effects?

It’s a million different things… but I’ll give you one:
Since Christianity is your religion, I guess I could safely assume you think its core values are God-approved, right? I know I do.
By the time Jesus finished his preaching & was killed, he had established a certain system of worship that was approved by his Father, God.
But Jesus knew it would not stay that way… remember the previous Scripture (above), Matthew 7:21-23?
And in line with Revelation 12:9 & others, it makes sense that a religion that started out right, would be a target for attack by His enemies. Has it?
Well, of the world’s major religions, it is the most fractured, with over 30,000 divisions & sects! Orders of magnitude beyond the others!

By making so many proverbial haystacks, Satan & his cohorts have tried to overshadow the needle.

By the way, as a theist, atheists already think my beliefs are irrational and that embracing them is ignorance. I've always been aware of that. How can you not be aware of that?

Honestly, I haven’t seen that. (I’ve seen them supporting your posts.) But then, I haven’t seen all your posts.

Why do you think that is some sort of whip to get me into line to suddenly start denying reality?

I don’t want to whip anybody. My goodness.

Why do you think that only non-Christians can persecute Christians?

I don’t follow.

You've been chomping at the bit to turn this into an inquisition. Here ya go.

I want to start an inquisition? I’m the inquisitor? But I’m the one here answering your questions. Lol.

I have lots of questions….

Then ask me. With respect, please.

I don’t know much about Australia, though. I have some nice opals from Lightning Ridge, & boulder opals from Koroit. I do love many science topics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You ignore who and what the Bible God is and what He has authority over and any long term plans He may have and describe Him in human terms without regard to those things.

Again, I don't. Is god not a moral agent? Or is he rather a robotic AI who makes decisions with no regard whatsoever for suffering and well-being?
It's one or the other.

It is God's responsibility in the sense that He knew what would happen before He created anything.

Not what I meant, but that makes it even worse....

But it is not God's responsibility in the sense that God did anything wrong.

If you know in advance what will happen and the outcome is bad and you do it anyway, then it is in fact 100% your responsibility.

And of course God has taken it on Himself to bring this bad situation of evil in His creation to an end.

By "sacrificing" himself to himself to save us from himself from a situation he himself is responsible for.
It just gets worse and worse.

He also failed miserably to "bring it to an end".
This is the story of god in the bible... failure after failure after failur.

You can throw blame around all you want but it is judging God from a place of ignorance.

It is not. It's holding this character accountable for the things he is ultimately responsible for.
You on the other hand, make up whatever excuse you can think of to exempt him from any and all responsibility.

 

[Brian2]

To continue, this is a good example. You tell @TagliatelliMonster he is coming from a place of ignorance, but in the process claim to know what God knew before the supposed creation of the universe. You also claim that God will fix everything one day. Who is coming from a place of ignorance? Both of you maybe?

Maybe

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The post I replied to presumed god.

Yes, it did, which is why, as I wrote, "the rest of what follow[ed was] only of interest to those who share your premise." Did you want to address that? Probably not. It seems self-evidently correct and noncontroversial to me.

So you see God, the creator and owner of all things as just another human with no authority over anything.

He probably sees "God" like I do - a creation of the imagination. But the humanist skeptic still judges the fictional character by the same rules as if it were an actual moral agent, and no, that doesn't include carte blanche approval of that behavior as the believer generally grants it. Might doesn't make right however mighty one is.

God created us with the potential to choose to do the wrong things.

That sounds like a design flaw. If you could design your children, would you program the ability to do wrong in or out of them?

He's waiting for more people to come to Him and in the meantime He is putting up with all the evil in the world.

That's a pretty good description of a nonexistent god, and what would be yet another bad idea for a deity that allegedly wants to be known, understood, loved, obeyed, and worshiped.

Maybe you've noticed in these last two comments of yours and my responses to them that the world is the way we would expect it to be if it arose and evolved naturalistically and was godless. And the apologist's response is to tell us that that's God's design, implying that God meant to be indistinguishable from his own nonexistence.

 

[Brian2]

Again, I don't. Is god not a moral agent? Or is he rather a robotic AI who makes decisions with no regard whatsoever for suffering and well-being?
It's one or the other.

There are other possibilities.

Not what I meant, but that makes it even worse....

He also knows the distant future and that this evil in the world is going to be non existent then.

If you know in advance what will happen and the outcome is bad and you do it anyway, then it is in fact 100% your responsibility.

As I said, there is more to it than that.

By "sacrificing" himself to himself to save us from himself from a situation he himself is responsible for.
It just gets worse and worse.

You must mean that He did not let us humans off the hook for all the evil we have done, but He accepted the death of one perfect human to pay the wages of sin that we have all earned for ourselves because of the evil deeds we have done.

It is not. It's holding this character accountable for the things he is ultimately responsible for.
You on the other hand, make up whatever excuse you can think of to exempt him from any and all responsibility.

But of course you don't believe in the Bible God or any Gods anyway so it has nothing to do with holding anyone accountable.
If there is a creator who judges us then you can present your ramblings to Him and say how evil He is and that you yourself are pure and holy in comparison and that He is responsible for all evil and you for nothing.
But if there is no God then you remain responsible for all the evil you have done.
But you can always tell yourself that there is really no such thing as evil except in our own imagination. We have made the idea up.

 

[Brian2]

I think that this is incorrect. The Old Testament messiah has never appeared. Jesus doesn't fulfill prophecy, but that's not possible for a believer who is convinced a priori that his Bible is truth and history and its god good and can't or won't evaluate evidence skeptically, open-mindedly and critically. That path leads to a belief set contradictory to the one that empiricism supports.

Empiricism would not accept the OT Messiah if He came and all the Jews believed it was Him. So you thinking that Jesus is not the Messiah is predictable.

We know that happens. We see evidence of self-organizing, far-from-equilibrium, heat dissipating systems in nature, such as tornadoes and hurricanes. Energy causes them to organize from chaotic patterns of molecules typical of a still atmosphere, each moving independently of the others and colliding with one another into an organized funnel of swirling molecules moving together at high speeds. Nobody organized that except nature. And living organisms are also a self-organizing, far-from-equilibrium, heat dissipating systems. The chemicals in a living thing exhibit a complexity not found in the elements before they organized themselves in an egg or womb or whatever nor afterward following death. In between, a living thing is like a hurricane, channeling ambient energy. It's why vortices appear in rivers. They dissipate energy more efficiently.

So chaos organises itself and there is no cause in the underlying principles of physics?

Not to anybody's knowledge. If you believe otherwise, you believe it by faith, and that isn't knowledge.

What anyone believes about the origins of life is believed by faith and isn't knowledge.

A belief is irrational if it is not sufficiently justified by evidence, and the criterion for belief is not 100% proof. Justified belief is always tentative, although the degree of uncertainty can become vanishingly small, yet never zero.

But you believe it anyway even though you say it is never proven. You make that leap of faith as I do.

And if I see scripture as weak prophecy, does that not make the Bible NOT worth believing and therefore not reliable.

You have your own subjective beliefs and reasons for not believing.

One believes because reason justifies that belief or he does so with out that. The former is rational by definiton - reason-based. Faith is not. It is ALWAYS irrational, since it isn't generated using reason. It's in the roots of the word:

View attachment 82030

My faith is not irrational. You must be confused or believe that for no reason.

If you mean the Abrahamic god, a lot of people find that deity immoral in the extreme. Rebut this if you think it's incorrect:

"The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins

Without a God there is no basis for absolute rights and wrongs.

You have kidded yourself into believing that it is impossible not to believe things by faith. It's very possible. I have no faith-based beliefs at all. I believe in no gods or other unevidenced creatures. I accept no belief unexamined, just as I don't drive without examining the road. Both can become regular habits, and should.

I have evidence for my beliefs but you believe my evidence is not evidence. That must be a faith based belief.

Why? If they are wrong and you are right, shouldn't you be anxious to reveal that to them? That should be easy if you're correct. Of course, if it's the other way around, and it's you that's wrong, your counterarguments will be ineffectual and you will tire of making them.

I'm tired of making arguments.

That's a logical error. The goodness of a god should be a conclusion derived from evidence, not premise believed before examining that evidence.

If you can't see the goodness of God because you left out faith in your life, then how can you examine the goodness of God. Everything you see of God is evil, even creation and giving life.

Same answer

You cannot trust is prophecies of God when you trust in Occam's razor more than you do in the possible existence of God and fulfilled prophecy.

Likewise, so does a tri-omni god. You added, "your example might have been a bit better if you had God as the manufacturer of the car and the manufacturer of the alcohol." Why does that make it better? It makes it less apt. Those manufacturers aren't omniscient. Nevertheless, if their products are foreseeably dangerous, then they are morally responsible for the harm those product do if not also legally.

We all know that cars are going to kill and that alcohol is going to bring violence and suffering and death, but are we responsible because we have supported the car industry and alcohol industry?

For a resurrection? Nobody. And yes, it' the event itself, which would be extraordinary. Saying that one saw something that looked like a dead person revivifying is not extraordinary evidentiary support.

Nobody saw Jesus actually revive.
There is a lot more to the story than that however.
The events for those present certainly represented good evidence. I just believe their reports.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That sounds like a design flaw. If you could design your children, would you program the ability to do wrong in or out of them?

What sort of question is that?

I have several children .. and if they act irresponsibly, I am disappointed, naturally.
Would there be any such thing as responsibility, if G-d had created us without it? Duhh