What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#501  Postby Just A Theory » Sep 19, 2017 11:49 pm

Wortfish wrote:Theists do believe God allows evil to happen. But that doesn't mean God can do evil. Big difference.

Wortfish wrote:
Because a benevolent God does not destroy his own creation. That would be out of his character.


I'm SO happy that a benevolent god is willing to let evil rampage throughout its created universe but is not willing to destroy that universe.

I feel ever so much more comforted by the idea that all of creation is just a playground for a torturer god's sick amusement as he watches our suffering and refrains from taking the most trivial action to prevent it.
"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."

Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834
Just A Theory
 
Posts: 1267
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#502  Postby Shrunk » Sep 19, 2017 11:50 pm

Wortfish wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
I believe if the odds are less than 1 in 10 - 40 then we can rule out the possibility of sheer chance

What event happens below those odds that would deem it a miracle rather than simply random
That figure is greater than 0 so then anything happening between it and 0 can not be a miracle

It's the figure scientists tend to use to rule out the possibility of chance.


Citation?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 25965
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#503  Postby surreptitious57 » Sep 20, 2017 3:02 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
something to be deemed a miracle it would have to have a probability less than 0

A miracle is defined as a supernatural event that has no rational explanation for it. So it therefore cannot have a probability
greater than 0 because all such events will have a rational explanation for them even where said explanation is not actually
known. Therefore they have to have a probability of less than 0. This means they can never happen. Any miracle that has a
rational explanation for it is not actually a miracle. One can not have a rational explanation for that that defies rationality
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 8532

Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#504  Postby Fallible » Sep 20, 2017 5:48 am

Wortfish wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
This is irrelevant when it comes to an omnipotent entity. An omnipotent deity can do whatever it likes. An omnipotent deity can choose not to change the rules once it has set them up but, being omnipotent, there is no reason why it should have set the rules up in a particular way.

Interesting that a non-believer knows the meaning of omnipotence. As I wrote, an omnipotent being can do what is intrinsically possible.

You're again conflating human made processes with how the universe simply is but, failing to see that you're simply trying to assume that a) there is something behind those processes and b) you're anthropomorphising onto it. Basically, you don't even recognise you're simply projecting humanity onto things.

The universe can be thought of as a machine, as a self-organising system. That isn't an anthropomorphisation.

Either god cannot do anything or god willingly allows evil to happen.

Theists do believe God allows evil to happen. But that doesn't mean God can do evil. Big difference.

Wortfish wrote: Likewise, having created a universe, God cannot destroy it.

Why not?

Because a benevolent God does not destroy his own creation. That would be out of his character.

So God isn't omnipotent. Because to be omnipotent is absolute.

God is absolutely omnipotent in his own transcendent realm, but not within the natural realm he created.

How do you know? How do you know that God wasn't created by another entity more powerful than God is simply testing to see how well God is working out?

I don't discount the possibility that our universe was created by a science student....but I find that idea a little improbable.

Ah, so God is omnipotent but, chooses not to use his power, so that natural processes which cause great suffering and harm, happen.

It's called freedom of action.



:rofl:
John Grant wrote:They say 'let go, let go, let go, you must learn to let go'.
If I hear that fucking phrase again, this baby's gonna blow
Into a million itsy bitsy tiny pieces, don't you know,
Just like my favourite scene in Scanners .
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 43948
Age: 44
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#505  Postby BlackBart » Sep 20, 2017 6:58 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
something to be deemed a miracle it would have to have a probability less than 0

A miracle is defined as a supernatural event that has no rational explanation for it. So it therefore cannot have a probability
greater than 0 because all such events will have a rational explanation for them even where said explanation is not actually
known. Therefore they have to have a probability of less than 0. This means they can never happen. Any miracle that has a
rational explanation for it is not actually a miracle. One can not have a rational explanation for that that defies rationality


Er, surr, you can't have a probability of less than zero. Zero probability events never happen - less than zero probability mean the event would occur less than never. A rigorously defined miracle (As opposed to a low probability event with a fortunate outcome) would have a probability of exactly zero as it would never actually occur.
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Posts: 10469
Age: 55
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#506  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Sep 20, 2017 8:09 am

Wortfish wrote:
Ah, so God is omnipotent but, chooses not to use his power, so that natural processes which cause great suffering and harm, happen.

It's called freedom of action.

Really?

Ah so the government chooses not to intervene so that parents can keep physically abusing their children. Because that's freedom of action.

Ah so the parents choose not to intervene so their children can keep bullying the neighbours kids. Because that's freedom of action.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27126
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#507  Postby BlackBart » Sep 20, 2017 8:12 am

Wortfish wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
This is irrelevant when it comes to an omnipotent entity. An omnipotent deity can do whatever it likes. An omnipotent deity can choose not to change the rules once it has set them up but, being omnipotent, there is no reason why it should have set the rules up in a particular way.

Interesting that a non-believer knows the meaning of omnipotence.


Yeah, it's called literacy. It means all powerful - not just powerful enough to avoid having to cope with the fact that my pretend friend would have to be a sociopathic cunt if it existed.

As I wrote, an omnipotent being can do what is intrinsically possible.


Yeah, you wrote it, but that doesn't mean it reflects reality.

Omni means 'All' Potent means 'Powerful'. If it can't do all things it isn't omnipotent - there's no such thing as semi-omnipotent. :lol:

You're again conflating human made processes with how the universe simply is but, failing to see that you're simply trying to assume that a) there is something behind those processes and b) you're anthropomorphising onto it. Basically, you don't even recognise you're simply projecting humanity onto things.

The universe can be thought of as a machine, as a self-organising system. That isn't an anthropomorphisation.


Your anthropomorphising the creation of a self organising system (One that can't actually self organise life on it's own accord apparently)


Theists do believe God allows evil to happen. But that doesn't mean God can do evil. Big difference.


Wrong. An entity that allows evil to occur when it can so something about it is evil. Inaction is still an action. Your nasty little god thing is evil - I'd be thoroughly ashamed of myself for kowtowing to such a repugnant creature.


God is absolutely omnipotent in his own transcendent realm, but not within the natural realm he created.


So this 'God', in his 'transcendant realm' created a universe which was incapable of initiating life on it's own - because we're told by theists that that's impossible - so then had to tinker within this universe to create life, but strangely, he's not able to change the laws of thermodynamics?

Did it not occur to this God to create this universe inside his 'transcendent realm' and make it totally perfect first without suffering and eyeworms etc - He could do that because, you know, he's absolutely omnipotent there according to you?

Do you think an absolutely omnipotent benevolent intelligent entity might be able to come up with a plan like that? Huh?


I don't discount the possibility that our universe was created by a science student....but I find that idea a little improbable.



Yeah, that would be fucking stupid wouldn't it?

It's called freedom of action.


So, despite being 'absolutely ominpotent' and could do literally anything without negative consqeuence, he decided to create said eyeworms, Auschwitz and Timmy Mallett did he?

Freedom of action eh? Nice fellah this God. :what:
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Posts: 10469
Age: 55
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#508  Postby Sendraks » Sep 20, 2017 10:05 am

BlackBart wrote:
Omni means 'All' Potent means 'Powerful'. If it can't do all things it isn't omnipotent - there's no such thing as semi-omnipotent. :lol:


Omni-impotent?
Omni-performance anxiety-potent?
Omni-imcompetent?

All of which would seem to be better descriptions for Wortfish's god than "omni-potent."
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 13635
Age: 101
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#509  Postby Bubalus » Sep 20, 2017 1:19 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Because a benevolent God does not destroy his own creation. That would be out of his character.


Tell that to Noah! - Oh, it's alright Noah is a mythical character as well
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” -Stephen Hawking‏
User avatar
Bubalus
 
Posts: 620
Age: 63
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#510  Postby DavidMcC » Sep 22, 2017 3:24 pm

AFAIK, the only difference between ID and "theistic evolution" is the number of separate acts of creation involved. ID proposes separate acts of creation for each "kind" (leaving the meaning of "kind:" undefined), whereas theistic evolution proposes possibly only one act of creation, leaving it up to nature to generate all the separate species seen today. Thus theistic evolution is less absurd than ID, but still unnecessary.
No doubt, there are different versions of them, such that people can quibble aboutn the distinction, but, hey, who cares? None of it amounts to science anyway.

EDIT: I'm assuming here that "theistic evolution" corresponds to what I know as "guided evolution", in which the theists' god, and not natural selection does the guiding. Of course, if NS does the guiding, it corresponds to guiding by weight of populations, or, if you prefer, no guidance at all.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14269
Age: 64
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest