Is Belief in a creator God compatible with evolutionary Naturalism?

[texan]

See below:



No, this doesn't refute it.



This, besides being wrong, doesn't refute it.



Not here



Not here either



Not here



Not here either, and I guess you decided to come back in...



Still no refutation.

That you disagree with my refutation doesn't make it suddenly sensible to simply ignore the fact I and others stated it multiple times. Nor does the OP's ignorance of theologians testifying to the same belief I outlined make any sense. Ive already agreed to disagree, why do you insist on rehashing an argument nobody wants to pursue?

The purpose for this forum is for people of faith to have a place to discuss it apart from Off Topic, where non-believers would routinely ruin every thread on the topic of faith or religion.

If you're not a believer, please stop entering threads here with the intent of stirring angst. If we can't have that cooperation, than there is no difference here than the Off Topic forum. Please, just be a gentleman about it. Allow us to have this space.

Who said I don't have faith? Everyone has faith, I want to discuss these matters too and have in no way been disrespectful to or dismissive of anyone's beliefs. I'd appreciate it if you stopped suggesting otherwise and focus on the constructive reason why we should be here rather than baseless accusation. If you simply have some personal issue with me then just don't respond to me, I won't be bullied out of a forum by someone who holds the opinion I shouldn't be there because they don't agree with everything I believe.

[Badmusic]

Might want to specify that next time you post a thread. If you only want the evangelical, born-again Protestant sects to respond, it'll help to cut down on all these different perspectives.

Your second premise IS wrong. Your specific belief structure may not say it is, but there are plenty of forms of Christianity that believe otherwise.

bigmike, I've been as patient as I can be. The FACT that Christianity teaches God is good comes from historic documented ORTHODOXY, not as you have attempted to assert and now minimize, the various "born again, Protestant sects. You may believe otherwise all you wish, but you will need to provide me with a list of names of the leaders and their phone numbers, from say...oh I don't know...if they are as numerous as you suggest...how about only 100 Christian churches that teach God is not good.

As for your fallacious bald assertion my second premise is wrong, are you going to leave it at that or provide an argument?

[Badmusic]

Many here in an attempt to refute premise one, kept saying things such as "many churches teach this..." Or many Christians believe that..."

Do any one of you making such claims understand these are fallacious appeals to authority or popularity? Do any of you study logic and reason?

It is fact, Christianity teaches God is good. Period.

If you wish to refute this argument, you must approach premise two, or argue the conclusion is non-sequitur. Furthermore, you must do so according to the rules of logic. I am getting tired of correcting fallacies, only to have "you" respond to the correction as if it were the basis of my argument. Please, take the time to understand the nature of the syllogism before responding with your opinion or denominational teaching as though they were arguments.

Christianity requires God to be good.
Evolution requires God to be not good.
Therefore the God of evolution and the God of Christianity cannot be the same God. (Laws of logic require this)

Conclusion; A Christian should not believe God used evolution to create man because it would destroy the Christian concept of good, refute the concept that God's nature is good, and do a whole host of violence to other traditional Christian concepts of God's ontology.

[bigmike82]

The FACT that Christianity teaches God is good

Duh. That wasn't what I took issue with.

As for your fallacious bald assertion my second premise is wrong, are you going to leave it at that or provide an argument?

Been there, done that. You attribute stupid crap to Evolution that has nothing to do with it. Evolution is no more responsible for pain and suffering than God is, and your second premise is therefore entirely and completely wrong. Numerous people have pointed out the flaws in your arguments in this premise.

Evolution does *not* require God to be not good. Evolution doesn't even require pain and suffering. Evolution simply says that certain traits are more suited for reproduction than other traits. Pain and suffering have nothing to do with it. To think otherwise is simply ignorant.

[hasserl]

That you disagree with my refutation doesn't make it suddenly sensible to simply ignore the fact I and others stated it multiple times. Nor does the OP's ignorance of theologians testifying to the same belief I outlined make any sense. Ive already agreed to disagree, why do you insist on rehashing an argument nobody wants to pursue?

This is ridiculous, what refutation? Multiple times? Please, I provided a copy of each of your posts, point out your refutation to me.

Are you referring to:

"Many millions of people believe in some brand of 'evolutionary creationism' and there are many theologians who've expounded on the topic."

Sorry, but this is not an effective refutation. You need to do better than that.

i.e.

"Do any one of you making such claims understand these are fallacious appeals to authority or popularity? "

[hasserl]

Evolution does *not* require God to be not good. Evolution doesn't even require pain and suffering. Evolution simply says that certain traits are more suited for reproduction than other traits. Pain and suffering have nothing to do with it. To think otherwise is simply ignorant.

OK, not that Badmusic needs any help, but isn't pain and suffering part of death? Isn't death part of evolution? I.e. improvement of the species via "the strong survive". Why would certain traits be more suited for reproduction than other traits? Because they better ensure the survival and perpetuation of the species? Are you being intellectually honest here?

[bigmike82]

not that Badmusic needs any help

He sure does.

isn't pain and suffering part of death?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It's not an integral requirement.

Why would certain traits be more suited for reproduction than other traits?

Because they grant some competitive advantage over others. And it's not always just the strong either. Look at peacocks, for example. The lady birds don't give a hoot about how strong the male is, they give a hoot about how colorful the plumes are.

Are you being intellectually honest here?

More so than the "God would never have used evolution" crowd.

[brando]

Why would certain traits be more suited for reproduction than other traits?

I'll give you a simple scenario that shows how the natural random mutation from breeding can lead to advantages and disadvantages:

There's a large field of grass where brown mice live and because this is a fairly dry climate, it's brown for a good chunk of the year. As predators stalk the grass or fly overhead looking for a mice to eat, they have a hard time picking the brown mice out most of the time as they are able to blend in with their environment quite effectively.

Among the generations of mice that live in this field, there are occasional offspring that are born with black fur or even white fur, which is just the normal result of reproduction's combining genes from both parents. Unfortunately, this high contrast fur stands out much more and predators are able to spot these mice easier and snatch them up. So they rarely survive long enough to reproduce and therefore the brown mice population continues staying mostly brown.

Then one day a fire scorches most of the field and suddenly the brown mice are easy for predators to pick off but the black mice are now well camouflaged. This shift gives an advantage to the black mice now and the mice with lighter colored fur now have a disadvantage. The result is over a few generations there are more and more black mice surviving, reproducing and increasing the population.

Evolutionary pressure comes in many different forms, but two of the key ones are: food source and predators. A minor random mutation that gives a minority an advantage can lead to big shifts in the genetic makeup of a population over a long period of time. If that mutation makes it easier to avoid being eaten or makes it easy to find food, the organism with that mutation will gain an advantage and be fitter for survival in that environment. Given centuries, millennia and more, part of a population can branch off from the group and face different pressures and therefore evolve differently. And these differences can be small but add up over all those hundreds, thousands, millions of years, leading to a completely different species.

[texan]

This is ridiculous, what refutation? Multiple times? Please, I provided a copy of each of your posts, point out your refutation to me.

Are you referring to:

"Many millions of people believe in some brand of 'evolutionary creationism' and there are many theologians who've expounded on the topic."

Sorry, but this is not an effective refutation. You need to do better than that.

i.e.

"Do any one of you making such claims understand these are fallacious appeals to authority or popularity? "

RIF, and this is my absolute last response to you in this or any other thread. Take this for what it's worth.

"The error in the OP is requiring that evolutionary theory also require naturalism in abiogenesis. That is an entirely independent concept which has no generally accepted scientific explanation. For people of faith who don't take the Bible literally, for example those treating Genesis as allegory, it doesn't automatically follow that belief in the Christian God precludes evolution driving the diversity of life."

[hasserl]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It's not an integral requirement.

OK, sometimes (most often?) death is not painless. You agree with that. In that case, then pain and suffering ARE an integral part of the process. Remember, we're being intellectually honest here. I don't see how you can deny this with your integrity intact. And so you fail to refute the premise.

Because they grant some competitive advantage over others. And it's not always just the strong either. Look at peacocks, for example. The lady birds don't give a hoot about how strong the male is, they give a hoot about how colorful the plumes are.

Which means you agree with me:

"Because they better ensure the survival and perpetuation of the species"

Which brings us back to the above. I.e. you loose.

Check mate.

[hasserl]

I'll give you a simple scenario that shows how the natural random mutation from breeding can lead to advantages and disadvantages:

There's a large field of grass where brown mice live and because this is a fairly dry climate, it's brown for a good chunk of the year. As predators stalk the grass or fly overhead looking for a mice to eat, they have a hard time picking the brown mice out most of the time as they are able to blend in with their environment quite effectively.

Among the generations of mice that live in this field, there are occasional offspring that are born with black fur or even white fur, which is just the normal result of reproduction's combining genes from both parents. Unfortunately, this high contrast fur stands out much more and predators are able to spot these mice easier and snatch them up. So they rarely survive long enough to reproduce and therefore the brown mice population continues staying mostly brown.

Then one day a fire scorches most of the field and suddenly the brown mice are easy for predators to pick off but the black mice are now well camouflaged. This shift gives an advantage to the black mice now and the mice with lighter colored fur now have a disadvantage. The result is over a few generations there are more and more black mice surviving, reproducing and increasing the population.

Evolutionary pressure comes in many different forms, but two of the key ones are: food source and predators. A minor random mutation that gives a minority an advantage can lead to big shifts in the genetic makeup of a population over a long period of time. If that mutation makes it easier to avoid being eaten or makes it easy to find food, the organism with that mutation will gain an advantage and be fitter for survival in that environment. Given centuries, millennia and more, part of a population can branch off from the group and face different pressures and therefore evolve differently. And these differences can be small but add up over all those hundreds, thousands, millions of years, leading to a completely different species.

LOL, thank you for that elementary description, but you failed to note the point of the question. Thanks anyway.

[hasserl]

RIF, and this is my absolute last response to you in this or any other thread. Take this for what it's worth.

Yeah, right. Just like you were leaving this thread earlier, yet here you are.

Does this mean you won't attack me any more? That would be nice, but I highly doubt it.

"The error in the OP is requiring that evolutionary theory also require naturalism in abiogenesis. That is an entirely independent concept which has no generally accepted scientific explanation.

This is bullcrap. Abiogenesis is not even mentioned in the premise made by the OP. This is a classic straw man argument, another fallacy.

Besides that abiogensis may be a separate subject, but the generation of life apart from a creator is at the base of what is argued as "evolution". The 2 are not entirely independent, that is bull crap, and like usual, it is illustrative of your lack of intellectual honesty.

For people of faith who don't take the Bible literally, for example those treating Genesis as allegory, it doesn't automatically follow that belief in the Christian God precludes evolution driving the diversity of life."

Well, there are different types of literature used in different books of the Bible, some may use allegory, Genesis is not one. Injecting presumed allegory onto certain passages because you struggle with the text is intellectually weak and dishonest.

[Badmusic]

Duh. That wasn't what I took issue with.

Duh. It's what you have been arguing all along. You keep trying to prove/demand God is not good. It' s what you SHOULD be taking issue with, because its what Christianity teaches despite your insistence it doesn't. The fact you believe you haven't taken issue with it is probably why none of your "arguments" are relevant.

I'm duh duh done with you. Shaking the dust off my feet, as previously advised.

Anyone else...?

[bigmike82]

Wow. The lack of English comprehension here is nothing short of astounding. Guess that explains your views.

Done indeed.

[Badmusic]

...

"The error in the OP is requiring that evolutionary theory also require naturalism in abiogenesis. That is an entirely independent concept which has no generally accepted scientific explanation. For people of faith who don't take the Bible literally, for example those treating Genesis as allegory, it doesn't automatically follow that belief in the Christian God precludes evolution driving the diversity of life."

I see. So you don't take the Bible literally when it teaches God is good? You don't accept God's word when the Bible says God created life and called it good? You then proceed to see the necessary pain and suffering in an evolutionary "reality" as though it were good because you have redefined what God meant by good by not taking the Bible literally, right? Therefore the pain and suffering mandated by God through natural selection is good, and you can equivocate that the Christian God is still good, without ever noticing your error, right?

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with my argument sir. Whether or not God is good, according to the Christian doctrine of what good "is", and can still be considered so if He claimed the LIFE He created was good, but then turned around and forced it to die. If life is good, then why would your "good" God force it to die?

This is (one of) the problem(s) with trying to claim the Christian God used evolution. In addition to my argument, that an evolutionary God is not good, you end up with a God who contradicts Himself. One moment He proclaims life He creates to be good. The next? He forces a creative method that requires death.

Attempting to eliminate a necessary ontological attribute of God by redefining terms, renders virtually every other attribute moot, or missing, and then one no longer has a "being" worthy of being called God!

Folks, you are all free to believe God used evolution to create man, my argument allows for that as one possibility. However, once you do, you are then forced to redefine not only what the Christian God deemed "good", but you must also redefine such things as love, justice, truth, etc.etc.etc.

It is not worth the mental gymnastics. Better to accept what God called good, recognizing that only good can come from a good God, than to try to make a God in your own image, where he contradicts himself, lies when he says life is good, will not perform justice on the guy who beats you to death, because after all, that guy was just busy surviving by being the fittest, and didn't really do anything wrong, because the new truth is, he was just playing by the evolutionary rules your "good" god gave him.