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"?

#81  Postby Fallible » Mar 05, 2017 6:44 pm

I see Wortfish has ignored my post. Evidently he has found no way out of the fact that he's restricted to having his god operate within decidedly un-omnipotent limits in order to explain away his behaviour, and is left no other course than to ignore the inconvenient truth and soldier on with his claptrap about Freedom and Nature as though nothing happened. Wortfish finds himself forced to use words like 'cannot' in order to defend his god's actions, all the while aware that he's supposed to believe that his god could bring anything at all, including logic and logical contradictions, and universal contentment which does not impinge upon freedom, into creation if he so wished. This being the case, he cannot escape the problem of evil, and all this claptrap about benevolence is revealed as the half arsed apologetics it is. So carry on, Wortfish, tell us some more about how the way God chose to set up his creation given limitless power is not evil.
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

Ads by Google


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

#82  Postby Animavore » Mar 05, 2017 6:55 pm

I don't see how giving people the option of choosing to do wrong and suffer consequences need entail allowing wrong doing and suffering to be inflicted on others.

There's an episode of Red Dwarf where they were on a prison vessel which contained a field which repelled injury inflicted back on to yourself. You punch someone right in the face it is you who ends up pained with a bloodied nose. Etc.

God could've created a universe like this (unless he's not omnipotent) which retains the choice and freewill to will harm on others while suffering the consequences without the needless suffering of innocents. In such A universe you would learn right action a lot quicker too.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44738
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

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

#83  Postby Wortfish » Mar 05, 2017 7:17 pm

Fallible wrote:I see Wortfish has ignored my post. Evidently he has found no way out of the fact that he's restricted to having his god operate within decidedly un-omnipotent limits in order to explain away his behaviour, and is left no other course than to ignore the inconvenient truth and soldier on with his claptrap about Freedom and Nature as though nothing happened. Wortfish finds himself forced to use words like 'cannot' in order to defend his god's actions, all the while aware that he's supposed to believe that his god could bring anything at all, including logic and logical contradictions, and universal contentment which does not impinge upon freedom, into creation if he so wished. This being the case, he cannot escape the problem of evil, and all this claptrap about benevolence is revealed as the half arsed apologetics it is. So carry on, Wortfish, tell us some more about how the way God chose to set up his creation given limitless power is not evil.


A benevolent Creator allows Nature freedom of action, including for misery and suffering to ensue as a consequence. It is as simple as that. There is no problem of evil. Evil is a consequence of natural beings and phenomena exercising their freedom and choice.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

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

#84  Postby TopCat » Mar 05, 2017 7:55 pm

Wortfish wrote:A benevolent Creator allows Nature freedom of action, including for misery and suffering to ensue as a consequence. It is as simple as that. There is no problem of evil. Evil is a consequence of natural beings and phenomena exercising their freedom and choice.

It is not as simple as that. You can't handwave the problem of pain away like that.

People having the freedom to inflict misery and suffering on other people, I could just about buy that. But childhood cancer? Tsunamis? Natural disasters of all kinds, where you just need to be unlucky to die?

That's not free will.

Conflating the two in order to concoct an apologetic for this ridiculous deity is pretty evil, though.
TopCat
 
Posts: 785
Age: 58
Male

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

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

#85  Postby Wortfish » Mar 05, 2017 7:55 pm

Rumraket wrote:
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?


What you're really asking is what does it mean to be "good" and why do we value anything at all. That is a separate question. Rather, the discussion here is over whether we can be free and do good. It is my argument that goodness is the outcome of a moral choice.
Last edited by Wortfish on Mar 05, 2017 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

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

#86  Postby Wortfish » Mar 05, 2017 8:01 pm

TopCat wrote:
People having the freedom to inflict misery and suffering on other people, I could just about buy that.


Good.

But childhood cancer? Tsunamis? Natural disasters of all kinds, where you just need to be unlucky to die?


Natural disasters/evil are the consequence of Nature's freedom to act. Childhood diseases are a consequence of environmental factors that are also allowed to freely occur. However, we have the power tochoose to combat these diseases and do good.

Conflating the two in order to concoct an apologetic for this ridiculous deity is pretty evil, though.


The argument here is that the Creator allows evil to exist because, to prevent it, would not be benevolent as it would deprive creation of its freedom to act.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

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

#87  Postby Wortfish » Mar 05, 2017 8:03 pm

Animavore wrote:
There's an episode of Red Dwarf where they were on a prison vessel which contained a field which repelled injury inflicted back on to yourself. You punch someone right in the face it is you who ends up pained with a bloodied nose. Etc.


That is the law of karma.

God could've created a universe like this (unless he's not omnipotent) which retains the choice and freewill to will harm on others while suffering the consequences without the needless suffering of innocents. In such A universe you would learn right action a lot quicker too.


Life is not an episode of Red Dwarf.
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"?

#88  Postby Thommo » Mar 05, 2017 8:14 pm

TopCat wrote:
Wortfish wrote:A benevolent Creator allows Nature freedom of action, including for misery and suffering to ensue as a consequence. It is as simple as that. There is no problem of evil. Evil is a consequence of natural beings and phenomena exercising their freedom and choice.

It is not as simple as that. You can't handwave the problem of pain away like that.

People having the freedom to inflict misery and suffering on other people, I could just about buy that. But childhood cancer? Tsunamis? Natural disasters of all kinds, where you just need to be unlucky to die?

That's not free will.

Conflating the two in order to concoct an apologetic for this ridiculous deity is pretty evil, though.


This is right. The important thing about this is that the existence of preventable childhood disease also proves that it is possible to have free will without that evil occurring.

Since an omnipotent being can do anything possible, and an omnibenevolent being would do anything possible, the theist position is left with an intractable contradiction.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27175

Print view this post

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

#89  Postby Shrunk » Mar 05, 2017 8:21 pm

Wortfish wrote:What you're really asking is what does it mean to be "good" and why do we value anything at all. That is a separate question. Rather, the discussion here is over whether we can be free and do good. It is my argument that goodness is the outcome of a moral choice.


So is God good? i.e. Is he free to do evil if he wishes?
"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: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

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

#90  Postby Fallible » Mar 05, 2017 8:34 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Fallible wrote:I see Wortfish has ignored my post. Evidently he has found no way out of the fact that he's restricted to having his god operate within decidedly un-omnipotent limits in order to explain away his behaviour, and is left no other course than to ignore the inconvenient truth and soldier on with his claptrap about Freedom and Nature as though nothing happened. Wortfish finds himself forced to use words like 'cannot' in order to defend his god's actions, all the while aware that he's supposed to believe that his god could bring anything at all, including logic and logical contradictions, and universal contentment which does not impinge upon freedom, into creation if he so wished. This being the case, he cannot escape the problem of evil, and all this claptrap about benevolence is revealed as the half arsed apologetics it is. So carry on, Wortfish, tell us some more about how the way God chose to set up his creation given limitless power is not evil.


A benevolent Creator allows Nature freedom of action, including for misery and suffering to ensue as a consequence. It is as simple as that. There is no problem of evil. Evil is a consequence of natural beings and phenomena exercising their freedom and choice.



All you're doing now is re-stating claims you couldn't back up in the first place. You don't have anywhere left to go with this.
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"?

#91  Postby Fallible » Mar 05, 2017 8:36 pm

Wortfish wrote:
TopCat wrote:
People having the freedom to inflict misery and suffering on other people, I could just about buy that.


Good.

But childhood cancer? Tsunamis? Natural disasters of all kinds, where you just need to be unlucky to die?


Natural disasters/evil are the consequence of Nature's freedom to act. Childhood diseases are a consequence of environmental factors that are also allowed to freely occur. However, we have the power tochoose to combat these diseases and do good.

Conflating the two in order to concoct an apologetic for this ridiculous deity is pretty evil, though.


The argument here is that the Creator allows evil to exist because, to prevent it, would not be benevolent as it would deprive creation of its freedom to act.


That's not an argument. That's a claim which rests on God not being omnipotent, or else not being omnibenevolent. Are you happy with that?
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"?

#92  Postby Fallible » Mar 05, 2017 8:37 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Animavore wrote:
There's an episode of Red Dwarf where they were on a prison vessel which contained a field which repelled injury inflicted back on to yourself. You punch someone right in the face it is you who ends up pained with a bloodied nose. Etc.


That is the law of karma.

God could've created a universe like this (unless he's not omnipotent) which retains the choice and freewill to will harm on others while suffering the consequences without the needless suffering of innocents. In such A universe you would learn right action a lot quicker too.


Life is not an episode of Red Dwarf.


The pertinent point appearing to be that the creator of Red Dwarf has more foresight than your god.
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"?

#93  Postby Rumraket » Mar 05, 2017 8:37 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
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?


What you're really asking is what does it mean to be "good"

I'm also asking that, yes. Try to explain it without using the word.

Goodness is [something] and that [something] is good because [reason].
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"?

#94  Postby scott1328 » Mar 05, 2017 8:40 pm

Wortfish's god is some punk-ass pussy1 god that is unable to use its omniscience to puzzle out how to use its omnipotence to implement its omnibenevolence.

Pathetic


1use of the gendered insult is intentional. The manly man god that wortfish worships doesn't like teh scary wimmenz
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8702
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

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

#95  Postby Rumraket » Mar 05, 2017 8:48 pm

Thommo wrote:
TopCat wrote:
Wortfish wrote:A benevolent Creator allows Nature freedom of action, including for misery and suffering to ensue as a consequence. It is as simple as that. There is no problem of evil. Evil is a consequence of natural beings and phenomena exercising their freedom and choice.

It is not as simple as that. You can't handwave the problem of pain away like that.

People having the freedom to inflict misery and suffering on other people, I could just about buy that. But childhood cancer? Tsunamis? Natural disasters of all kinds, where you just need to be unlucky to die?

That's not free will.

Conflating the two in order to concoct an apologetic for this ridiculous deity is pretty evil, though.


This is right. The important thing about this is that the existence of preventable childhood disease also proves that it is possible to have free will without that evil occurring.

Since an omnipotent being can do anything possible, and an omnibenevolent being would do anything possible, the theist position is left with an intractable contradiction.

Not entirely correct. A common apologist response to this is to postulate that God has some grand vision, some great cosmic plan, through which all the suffering in the world not caused by sentient "moral beings", is justified.

For example, the apologist will try to argue, there could be some ultimate level of happiness or goodness that could only be reached through some finite and temporary suffering. In the moral landscape (not the book), there is some maximum peak that can only be reached and is only possible because of a great valley around it. So while God could in principle intervene and prevent gratuitous suffering caused by non-sentient a-moral forces and events, that would mean those who didn't go through this suffering could therefore not achieve this ultimate level of happiness,because the suffering was a necessary precondition for that.

There is no logical contradiction in this argument. The problem is not the conclusion, it's the complete lack of justification for the premise. The claim "it is possible that there is this cosmic plan" is nothing but that a mere claim. A statement that something is possible. But there's no actual evidence that justifies belief in the existence of such a plan. Simply put, the theist has no rational reason for believing in this hypothesis in the first place. It's just an ad-hoc excuse. Even more succinctly, it is also logically possible that there is NO such highest possible peak only reachable through a valley of gratuitous suffering. So since both options are logically possible, why should we believe the apologists preferred version? There is no justification for that.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Ads by Google


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

#96  Postby Thommo » Mar 05, 2017 9:11 pm

That's a slightly different issue, the intractable contradiction lies in the deployment of free will as part of the argument. If nature can have free will (whatever the hell that means) without being able to kill children with smallpox, then the ability to kill children with smallpox, by definition, is not a prerequisite for nature to have free will. Therefore nature having free will does not prevent god preventing children from getting smallpox (i.e. the clause that an omnibenevolent god allows free will has no bearing one way or other on the matter).

You might well be right that an apologist would ditch this version of the free will argument and move on to the next, which has different failings.

Edit: Removed an erroneous "lack of an".
Last edited by Thommo on Mar 05, 2017 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27175

Print view this post

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

#97  Postby Wortfish » Mar 05, 2017 9:47 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Goodness is [something] and that [something] is good because [reason].


Goodness has many possibly meanings and definitions. Excellence, soundness, righteousness, usefulness etc. You are distracting the discussion by digressing onto the question of what it means to be good. What this discussion concerns is whether one can do good or evil without the freedom to choose between the two.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

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

#98  Postby Wortfish » Mar 05, 2017 9:55 pm

Fallible wrote:
That's not an argument. That's a claim which rests on God not being omnipotent, or else not being omnibenevolent. Are you happy with that?


You misunderstand what is means to be benevolent. Allowing creation the freedom to act is the supreme example of benevolence.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

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

#99  Postby Wortfish » Mar 05, 2017 9:56 pm

Thommo wrote:That's a slightly different issue, the intractable contradiction lies in the deployment of free will as part of the argument. If nature can have free will (whatever the hell that means) without being able to kill children with smallpox, then the lack of an ability to kill children with smallpox, by definition, is not a prerequisite for nature to have free will. Therefore nature having free will does not prevent god preventing children from getting smallpox (i.e. the clause that an omnibenevolent god allows free will has no bearing one way or other on the matter).


Correction: Nothing prevents humans from eradicating smallpox by acting with the freedom of will bestowed by God.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

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

#100  Postby Wortfish » Mar 05, 2017 9:57 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Wortfish wrote:What you're really asking is what does it mean to be "good" and why do we value anything at all. That is a separate question. Rather, the discussion here is over whether we can be free and do good. It is my argument that goodness is the outcome of a moral choice.


So is God good? i.e. Is he free to do evil if he wishes?

The absolute freedom of God is what makes him omnipotent.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests