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"?

#61  Postby Wortfish » Mar 01, 2017 2:42 pm

Fallible wrote:I think you're getting mixed up. You're talking about God being benevolent, not people, remember? This being the case, people choosing to do good applies to their benevolence, not God's. Their benevolence, I might add, in a world where the concept of evil already exists. Since doing good is a choice, God could choose to just not allow anything harmful or horrible to exist in the first place. He has far less of an excuse than people. God has control over the entire show. God created evil, concept and act. God created disease, parasites, torture, hatred. God created everything that is.


I think you are confusing omnibenevolence, i.e. having good intentions, with an existential and absolute benefaction whereby only good is allowed to exist. The latter would be incompatible with benevolence because it would prevent evil by restricting the freedom of Nature, including humans, to act. That would deprive Nature of its coherency and liberty. It would also mean that "goodness" would not have any meaning or value at all since evil would not exist to be constrasted against.

Before God, these things simply did not exist. Concepts, ideas, actions, meanings, referents - none of it. God could have set things up in any way he wanted. In ways we can't even begin to imagine because we're not God. He could have set things up so that we had freedom of action and no way to inflict misery. He's omnipotent, remember? He has unlimited power. He makes the laws of physics and the rules of logic. He didn't, though. He chose this. That's not benevolence. That's either incompetence or malice aforethought. Oh, and lest we forget, the claim isn't just that God is benevolent. It's that he's omnibenevolent - infinitely good.


I think the passage in Isaiah which you cite is claiming that God is the author of all things, good and bad. If he wasn't the (ultimate) author of suffering, then he wouldn't be omnipotent and omnipresent. It is an attempt to deny a dualistic worldview whereby God is responisble only for all the good things and the Devil is responsible for all of the wickedness. I think it is logically absurd to allow freedom of action and prevent the infliction of misery as a consequence of this freedom.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


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

#62  Postby Sendraks » Mar 01, 2017 2:50 pm

Wortfish wrote:I think you are confusing omnibenevolence, i.e. having good intentions, with an existential and absolute benefaction whereby only good is allowed to exist.


I think you're confusing making unsupported assertions with anything approaching reasoned argument. Benevolence is not just limited to "having good" intentions. You're goalpost shifting.

Wortfish wrote: The latter would be incompatible with benevolence because it would prevent evil by restricting the freedom of Nature, including humans, to act.

So you assert. The compatibility of things is whatever God decides it to be. Why then did god create a world in such a way as to make restricting evil "incompatible" with nature?

Wortfish wrote: That would deprive Nature of its coherency and liberty. It would also mean that "goodness" would not have any meaning or value at all since evil would not exist to be constrasted against.

Again, you're confused.
The "evil" that is being done is by a creator god that has created phenomena which do harm to people. The actual things which do harm, such as diseases and natural disasters, are not evil in and of themselves. Only the person who created them and permits them to continue to exist, can be evil.

Wortfish wrote:I think the passage in Isaiah which you cite is claiming that God is the author of all things, good and bad. If he wasn't the (ultimate) author of suffering, then he wouldn't be omnipotent and omnipresent.

So God is a dick and evil, because god intentionally causes suffering.
Deliberately causing suffering to others is, from the atheistic worldview, immoral behaviour.

Wortfish wrote:I think it is logically absurd to allow freedom of action and prevent the infliction of misery as a consequence of this freedom.

You're simply asserting this and providing nothing to back it up. You're just special pleading for god to justify dickery.
"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: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

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

#63  Postby Fallible » Mar 01, 2017 3:34 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Fallible wrote:I think you're getting mixed up. You're talking about God being benevolent, not people, remember? This being the case, people choosing to do good applies to their benevolence, not God's. Their benevolence, I might add, in a world where the concept of evil already exists. Since doing good is a choice, God could choose to just not allow anything harmful or horrible to exist in the first place. He has far less of an excuse than people. God has control over the entire show. God created evil, concept and act. God created disease, parasites, torture, hatred. God created everything that is.


I think you are confusing omnibenevolence, i.e. having good intentions, with an existential and absolute benefaction whereby only good is allowed to exist. The latter would be incompatible with benevolence because it would prevent evil by restricting the freedom of Nature, including humans, to act. That would deprive Nature of its coherency and liberty. It would also mean that "goodness" would not have any meaning or value at all since evil would not exist to be constrasted against.


That's nice, that you have a view. You don't seem to realise that all this is pointless wibble, since this creator you refer to created EVERYTHING. Everything you can experience or conceive of. This means that it's not for a puny human like yourself to decide what would be incompatible with what. God creates the very meaning of benevolence, benefaction and compatibility. He's omnipotent, remember. He could make married bachelors or steel which weighs less than air. It is fairly amusing to watch you become suddenly concerned with coherence and compatibility within the framework of belief in a motherfucking creator god though, so thanks for that. It's like 'oh, we can't have absolute benefaction whereby only good is allowed to exist, because it would restrict the freedom of Nature (the capital letter is important), but we're fine with the idea of a complex intelligence which has always existed and made everything out of nothing. No problem with that at all'. God's the one who decides what nature is, what freedom is and what will restrict it. If he decides that we can have absolute benefaction whereby only good is allowed to exist and at the same time that this would not affect coherence and liberty, that's what we'd get. If he wanted to never even create the idea of restriction, it would be gone. He didn't do any of that, he chose to create evil and suffering.

Before God, these things simply did not exist. Concepts, ideas, actions, meanings, referents - none of it. God could have set things up in any way he wanted. In ways we can't even begin to imagine because we're not God. He could have set things up so that we had freedom of action and no way to inflict misery. He's omnipotent, remember? He has unlimited power. He makes the laws of physics and the rules of logic. He didn't, though. He chose this. That's not benevolence. That's either incompetence or malice aforethought. Oh, and lest we forget, the claim isn't just that God is benevolent. It's that he's omnibenevolent - infinitely good.


I think the passage in Isaiah which you cite is claiming that God is the author of all things, good and bad.


Yes, that's right. In other words, he chose to create bad.

If he wasn't the (ultimate) author of suffering, then he wouldn't be omnipotent and omnipresent.


No, that's right, being from the Bible as it is, it's an attempt to have God say that he created everything, including evil. That he's Billy Big Balls. I always read it in the voice of a WWF wrestler bragging about what he's going to do to his opponent in their next match.

It is an attempt to deny a dualistic worldview whereby God is responisble only for all the good things and the Devil is responsible for all of the wickedness.


Oh, I see. So he's not showing off, he's holding his hands up and claiming responsibility for all the shit he's inflicted on everyone. Yes, that's exactly the tone of it.

I think it is logically absurd to allow freedom of action and prevent the infliction of misery as a consequence of this freedom.


It doesn't matter one whit what you, a puny human, think is logically absurd. God is in charge of teh logics, not you. He's omnipotent, remember. This means that he can choose to set things up however he wants, in ways we can't even begin to imagine because we're not God. Again, the sudden appeal to logic at a certain point down the omni-everything-creator-god-who-just-is-and-created-the-universe-and-everything-in-it-but-exists-outside-the-universe road is amusing to mine eye.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 48
Female

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

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

#64  Postby Calilasseia » Mar 01, 2017 3:47 pm

Quite simply, the capacity for an action to result in benefit or harm being dispensed to another, is wholly separate and independent from whether or not that action was performed by choice. Indeed, it's possible for you to dispense harm to others, without even being aware that this is happening. For example, if you don't know you're a carrier of hepatitis B, you could kill whoever you have sex with, by passing on that virus, which can be transmitted sexually. That you were unaware at the time of your carrier status, doesn't stop the recipient of your virus from being dead afterwards. In such a scenario, you didn't choose to bring about that premature death, and almost certainly would have taken steps to stop this from happening if you had been aware of your carrier status. But that doesn't stop the consequences of your actions being malign.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22089
Age: 59
Male

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

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

#65  Postby Sendraks » Mar 01, 2017 3:48 pm

Calilasseia wrote:Quite simply, the capacity for an action to result in benefit or harm being dispensed to another, is wholly separate and independent from whether or not that action was performed by choice. Indeed, it's possible for you to dispense harm to others, without even being aware that this is happening. For example, if you don't know you're a carrier of hepatitis B, you could kill whoever you have sex with, by passing on that virus, which can be transmitted sexually. That you were unaware at the time of your carrier status, doesn't stop the recipient of your virus from being dead afterwards. In such a scenario, you didn't choose to bring about that premature death, and almost certainly would have taken steps to stop this from happening if you had been aware of your carrier status. But that doesn't stop the consequences of your actions being malign.


But, if you're the entity which created the virus, knowing full well that it might lead to scenarios like this occurring, well, that makes you quite a bit of a dick.
"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: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

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

#66  Postby Fallible » Mar 01, 2017 3:49 pm

Not just might lead to, but will. He's omniscient.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 48
Female

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

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

#67  Postby scott1328 » Mar 01, 2017 8:30 pm

When backed into a corner with the POE and a tri-omni god, most believers I've met give up omni-benevolence and usually tone down the omnipotence to a punk version that tries to avoid logical contradiction.

Don't know why, though. An omnipotent God, one that has no restrictions, is not stopped by logical contradiction; it is omnimalevolent and omnibenevolent at the same time.
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8702
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


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

#68  Postby Greyman » Mar 01, 2017 10:41 pm

scott1328 wrote:When backed into a corner with the POE and a tri-omni god, most believers I've met give up omni-benevolence and usually tone down the omnipotence to a punk version that tries to avoid logical contradiction.
Yet they simultaneously insist that god loves everyone and will reward those who obey him enough by resurrecting them in a place without suffering. Whereas those who don't obey enough will lovingly be confined to eternal torture without parole.
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit." - T. Tick.
User avatar
Greyman
 
Name: Graham
Posts: 493
Age: 53

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

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

#69  Postby Sendraks » Mar 01, 2017 11:02 pm

Greyman wrote:Yet they simultaneously insist that god loves everyone and will reward those who obey him enough by resurrecting them in a place without suffering. Whereas those who don't obey enough will lovingly be confined to eternal torture without parole.


Technically it is "belief" not obedience that is key. Not believing in god is the only unforgivable sin according to the hokey burble. It doesn't matter how good your "works" are to god, if you don't believe (blindly) you're fucked.

What a twat.

*Edited to clarify that the belief we're talking about here is not remotely evidential*
Last edited by Sendraks on Mar 02, 2017 12:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

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

#70  Postby Calilasseia » Mar 02, 2017 12:26 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Greyman wrote:Yet they simultaneously insist that god loves everyone and will reward those who obey him enough by resurrecting them in a place without suffering. Whereas those who don't obey enough will lovingly be confined to eternal torture without parole.


Technically it is "belief" not obedience that is key. Not believing in god is the only unforgivable sin according to the hokey burble. It doesn't matter how good your "works" are to god, if you don't believe you're fucked.

What a twat.


In short, "conform or die" taken to a particularly hideous logical conclusion.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22089
Age: 59
Male

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

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

#71  Postby Wortfish » Mar 05, 2017 2:35 pm

Sendraks wrote:
I think you're confusing making unsupported assertions with anything approaching reasoned argument. Benevolence is not just limited to "having good" intentions. You're goalpost shifting.


Benevolence does indeed mean having good (bene) intentions (volence). It literally means "wishing well".

So you assert. The compatibility of things is whatever God decides it to be. Why then did god create a world in such a way as to make restricting evil "incompatible" with nature?


Allowing evil to exist means allowing the freedom of natural beings to do evil. If God created a world where evil did not exist, then he would be creating a world where no freedom existed and nothing had any value at all. That would not be benevolent.

Again, you're confused.The "evil" that is being done is by a creator god that has created phenomena which do harm to people. The actual things which do harm, such as diseases and natural disasters, are not evil in and of themselves. Only the person who created them and permits them to continue to exist, can be evil.


But these "natural evils" serve a purpose. They allow us to do good and show compassion to those affected by disease and disaster. They also serve to advance evolution. Wallace discovered natural selection when he realised that some people had acquired immunity to malaria. Likewise, the demise of the dinosaurs was precipitated by a natural disaster of a global scale. There is also the matter of responsibility. I can't blame God if I eat 2 gallons of ice cream every day and get heart and gum disease. What sort of a world would that be where I can get away with anything?

So God is a dick and evil, because god intentionally causes suffering. Deliberately causing suffering to others is, from the atheistic worldview, immoral behaviour.


God is the creator of eveything, according to the Bible. If evil happened contrary to his will, then he would not be an omnipotent being. Now, just because he is the ultimate author, does not mean that he is the cause of all suffering and evil nor that evil does not serve a higher purpose of reconciling the creation to its Creator.

You're simply asserting this and providing nothing to back it up. You're just special pleading for god to justify dickery.


The freedom to act bestowed upon Nature is the singular expression of benevolence. Without it, there can be no moral perspective.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

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

#72  Postby Wortfish » Mar 05, 2017 2:39 pm

scott1328 wrote:
Don't know why, though. An omnipotent God, one that has no restrictions, is not stopped by logical contradiction; it is omnimalevolent and omnibenevolent at the same time.


God cannot do logically absurd things. He can't create a square circle. He can't kill himself. Likewise, he can't create a natural world where freedom of action exists, and prevent evil and suffering from happening as a consequence of this freedom of action.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

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

#73  Postby Wortfish » Mar 05, 2017 2:43 pm

Sendraks wrote:
But, if you're the entity which created the virus, knowing full well that it might lead to scenarios like this occurring, well, that makes you quite a bit of a dick.


Viruses are not evil. They have been discovered to play a crucial role in evolution. We are trying to use viruses to cure genetic diseases and cancer. They infect and kill bacterial pathogens. And we all have immune systems to fight them when they try and take over.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

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

#74  Postby Rumraket » Mar 05, 2017 2:51 pm

Wortfish wrote:The freedom to act bestowed upon Nature is the singular expression of benevolence. Without it, there can be no moral perspective.

Why is a moral perspective preferable to none? What is good about freedom? Try to derive it without assuming it to begin with.

Good luck...
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

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

#75  Postby Wortfish » Mar 05, 2017 2:59 pm

Rumraket wrote:Why is a moral perspective preferable to none? What is good about freedom? Try to derive it without assuming it to begin with.
Good luck...


A moral perspective allows you to differentiate between right and wrong actions. If you don't have the freedom to choose your actions, then you cannot understand the moral consequences of your behaviour and so cannot attach value to anything. Without a moral perspective, there can be no meaning and purpose in all that you do.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


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

#76  Postby Rumraket » Mar 05, 2017 3:11 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Rumraket wrote:Why is a moral perspective preferable to none? What is good about freedom? Try to derive it without assuming it to begin with.
Good luck...


A moral perspective allows you to differentiate between right and wrong actions. If you don't have the freedom to choose your actions, then you cannot understand the moral consequences of your behaviour and so cannot attach value to anything. Without a moral perspective, there can be no meaning and purpose in all that you do.

So...?
You haven't answered my question. Why is any of that good?

Again. Why is a moral perspective preferable to none? What is good about freedom?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

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

#77  Postby Wortfish » Mar 05, 2017 3:49 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Again. Why is a moral perspective preferable to none? What is good about freedom?


Because without a moral perspective, to repeat the point, you cannot attach value or meaning to anything. Freedom allows you to choose, and thereby, control your own life. With no freedom, you cannot experience success or failure, you are just victim to factors determined other than by you.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

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

#78  Postby Rumraket » Mar 05, 2017 3:52 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Again. Why is a moral perspective preferable to none? What is good about freedom?


Because without a moral perspective, to repeat the point, you cannot attach value or meaning to anything. Freedom allows you to choose, and thereby, control your own life. With no freedom, you cannot experience success or failure, you are just victim to factors determined other than by you.

That doesn't explain what is good about it. You're merely telling me what I can or can't do, not why being able to do any of those things are good.

It's becoming clear you don't actually know. You can't tell me, you're implicitly assuming it every time.

Because without a moral perspective, to repeat the point, you cannot attach value or meaning to anything.

Why is it good to attach value and meaning to something?

Freedom allows you to choose, and thereby, control your own life.

Why is it good to control your own life?

With no freedom, you cannot experience success or failure, you are just victim to factors determined other than by you.

Why is it good to experience success or failure?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

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

#79  Postby Wortfish » Mar 05, 2017 4:40 pm

Rumraket wrote:
That doesn't explain what is good about it. You're merely telling me what I can or can't do, not why being able to do any of those things are good. It's becoming clear you don't actually know. You can't tell me, you're implicitly assuming it every time.


You're engaging in sophistry and obfuscation, not reason and logic. But I will answer your questions nonetheless.

Why is it good to attach value and meaning to something?


Because without value and meaning, the reality you experience is devoid of importance and instrinsic worth. If you don't value anything, then your life is hollow and insubstantial.

Why is it good to control your own life?


Because it is your life, and it is not lived by others.

Why is it good to experience success or failure?


Because you would not know what the consequence of your actions is and what actions are most or least propitious.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

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

#80  Postby Rumraket » Mar 05, 2017 6:31 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
That doesn't explain what is good about it. You're merely telling me what I can or can't do, not why being able to do any of those things are good. It's becoming clear you don't actually know. You can't tell me, you're implicitly assuming it every time.

You're engaging in sophistry and obfuscation, not reason and logic.

So show me with reason and logic why these things are good without assuming it.

Why is it good to attach value and meaning to something?

Because without value and meaning, the reality you experience is devoid of importance

What is importance? Importance to what? You? Other people? Why does that make something important? Because you feel it is? You read it somewhere?

and instrinsic worth.

How does something have intrinsic worth? What makes it have a "worth"? What is that?

Look, if you can't answer these questions, just say so. Simply admit that these are things you assume and we can be done here. You keep arguing, yet somewhere deep down you now know I have exposed that all these things rest on nothing but your feelings and emotions (if it was more than that, you would have been able to answer me already now).

You feel that something has worth. You feel it is important. You think they're good because, well that's just what you feel. You like the idea of freedom, it is emotionally appealing. You want to have a purpose, you desire meaning in your life.

I have all those same feelings. But so what? Why does that make them good things? I agree they're desirable, but I also admit that's just an emotion I have. I don't see how I can rest them on anything but that, without me having to deliberately make up or assume something else I can't philosophically justify.

If you don't value anything, then your life is hollow and insubstantial.

Why is a hollow and insubstantial life not good?

All these words you're using. Importance, worth, hollow, substance. What do they mean?
Importance. What is that? A status of something in your mind? A relation between things that make you feel certain ways? Some things feel important, others do not. So it's an emotion you have? What is good about that?

Worth. What worth? Like a currency? Another emotion? What do you derive worth from? How does that thing, whatever it is, make something "worthy"?

Why is it good to control your own life?

Because it is your life, and it is not lived by others.

That isn't an answer, that's just another way of stating who is in control. I'm asking why it is good to be in control. Why is that good, to be in control?

Don't just tell me that YOU being in control is not the same as OTHERS being in control. I know that, I'm asking why that is good? Why is YOU being in control, as opposed to OTHERS, or something ELSE, a good thing? Why?

I also want to be in control of my own life. But that's just how I feel, an emotion I have. Why does that make it good just because I feel that way?

Why is it good to experience success or failure?

Because you would not know what the consequence of your actions is and what actions are most or least propitious.

Why is it good to know the consequences of your actions?

You're just smothering me with consequences. Why are those consequences bad or good? Because of more consequences? You're intelligent enough to understand why that isn't actually answering the question.

So once again, rather than feel you need to just keep answering me in order that you avoid feeling like you've "backed down" or something, take a break and try to question yourself and these concepts for a while. Where does it all come from, all these things you think are good? Worth, importance, freedom and so on.
What is it that make them good things in your view? And try to not just pile more things on top you then ALSO have to justify, like substance, meaning, purpose and so on. Try to really think about where they come from. What do they stand on? So far, all you've done is list things you think are good, you've not explained what it is that make them good. What is goodness in the first place? Perhaps you should start there?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest