Is Belief in a creator God compatible with evolutionary Naturalism?

[Badmusic]

You can copy and paste from Wikipedia all you want. I don't think you understand what it means because you are still using it incorrectly.

And you can think what you want. I didn't use Wikipedia, you are simply wrong. I use it correctly with respect to deductive reasoning, and you don't understand it. Appeals to authority are ALWAYS DEDUCTIVELY FALLACIOUS.

[Badmusic]

I don't know.

But that's not the point. Evolution has nothing to do with Good or Evil.

Yes, I know you don't know. However it is the point. I started this conversation to talk with CHRISTIANS who believe God used evolution to create man. If you claim to be a Christian, you SHOULD know. Since you don't, I am forced to believe you are not a Christian, as Christianity, Christians, and Christian theology have, currently do, and probably always will teach God is good. Basically, premise one of my argument is unassailable, except by those who do not claim assent to traditional, historic, scholastically documented Christian theology. Therefore, I cannot continue entertain your arguments, unless you challenge premise two, or the idea that my conclusion is non-sequitur.

Of course You don't *know* the mind of God. You don't *know* what He did, what He created, and what He used. It's entirely possible.

We've established that God can, and does, use suffering to impact His creation, right? So if your argument continues to be that pain and suffering equals evil, God is therefore evil.

My argument has nothing to do with whether or not God is evil. It posits a "good" God, vs. a "not good" God. Until you grasp this, assuming you are a Christian, and have the Christian understanding of "good", and cease exchanging the concept of "not good" for "evil" as though it were the opposite of good (instead of not good), I cannot entertain any more of your arguments. Besides, it's not about God using pain and suffering, it's about who is responsible for the pain and suffering.

But He isn't. And neither is Evolution.

Evolution doesn't even rely on suffering. It simply relies on a certain trait being better suited for survival.

Better suited, yes. And better suited means pain, death, and suffering to those not better suited. From the Christian perspective of "good", there is no way to describe a God who used evolution and therefore FORCES pain suffering and death on His creation as being "good".

[Badmusic]

I wasn't at all interested in translations... someone else brought up that argument. I was using an arbitrary translation of the bible to refute the notion that evil is caused by humans and not god.

Your confusion lies in the fact my argument does not presume humans "cause" "evil". They are responsible for choosing it. In Christian theology, evil is not a "thing" it therefore had no "cause". Evil, is the absence of God in the human heart. But then, my argument does not account for a cause, that's something you read into it. It posits instead, who is responsible for choosing evil. In Christianity, man chose evil, in an evolutionary scenario, man has no choice but to behave in an evil manner because God forces it on him through natural selection. This makes God (in evolution) "not good". Since God cannot be both "good" (Christian doctrine) and "not good" (evolution) in the same being, it is concluded the Christian God cannot be the same God as the God of evolution.

[Bill Carson]

Pearls before swine, my brothers. He hates God and nothing you say will change his mind. Dust off and move on I say.

[Badmusic]

Pearls before swine, my brothers. He hates God and nothing you say will change his mind. Dust off and move on I say.

Who you talking to, Bill?

[colossians323]

there is a host of them, go through and take your pick

[Bill Carson]

Who you talking to, Bill?

Not you.

[Bill Carson]

there is a host of them, go through and take your pick

This

[Badmusic]

Sometimes the animosity is sooooo thick, I start to suspect everyone. Thanks for your patience.

[Badmusic]

OK. I am going to attempt this one more time. Here is another reformation of my argument. I'll attempt to make it simple, which should result in clarity, if not agreement.


Premise 1) If Christianity describes the creation of Man, "God" is necessarily "good".

Premise 2) If Evolution describes the creation of man, "God" is necessarily "not good".

Premise 3) The Ontological nature of "God" requires He cannot be both "good" and "not good" in the same "being".

Conclusion;

A) It is therefore concluded that the "God" of Christianity, and the "God" of Evolution cannot be the same "God".
B) Any person who claims either P1, or P2 to be "true", cannot rationally hold that both P1 and P2 are are true at the same time, in the same way, and in the same place, for they would be holding oppositional beliefs about the ontological nature of "God", resulting in the maintenance of a logical absurdity as "Truth".
C) Any person claiming to be a "Christian", and holding P2 as "true", is essentially maintaining the same logical absurdity, as Christianity has always and necessarily held that "God" is "good".

[Bill Carson]

OK. I am going to attempt this one more time. Here is another reformation of my argument. I'll attempt to make it simple, which should result in clarity, if not agreement.


Premise 1) If Christianity describes the creation of Man, "God" is necessarily "good".

Premise 2) If Evolution describes the creation of man, "God" is necessarily "not good".

Premise 3) The Ontological nature of "God" requires He cannot be both "good" and "not good" in the same "being".

Conclusion;

A) It is therefore concluded that the "God" of Christianity, and the "God" of Evolution cannot be the same "God".
B) Any person who claims either P1, or P2 to be "true", cannot rationally hold that both P1 and P2 are are true at the same time, in the same way, and in the same place, for they would be holding oppositional beliefs about the ontological nature of "God", resulting in the maintenance of a logical absurdity as "Truth".
C) Any person claiming to be a "Christian", and holding P2 as "true", is essentially maintaining the same logical absurdity, as Christianity has always and necessarily held that "God" is "good".

Works for me.

[bigmike82]

Premise 2 is wrong.

[bigmike82]

And better suited means pain, death, and suffering to those not better suited.

Death, sure. Not necessarily pain or suffering.

From the Christian perspective of "good", there is no way to describe a God who used evolution and therefore FORCES pain suffering and death on His creation as being "good".

Your notion that God doesn't make us endure pain or suffering is flat out wrong. Nowhere did God promise that our lives would be happy, or fun, or long.

If you claim to be a Christian, you SHOULD know.

Not true. Some of us understand the difference between knowledge and faith.

Besides, it's not about God using pain and suffering, it's about who is responsible for the pain and suffering.

Clearly, if you have even a smidgen of faith in the bible, God is the cause of pain and suffering since He planned all this. Or are you saying that God's creation diverged from His plan?

Answer that question please. Seriously. Is everything that happens part of God's plan? Including the pain and suffering?

[Badmusic]

Death, sure. Not necessarily pain or suffering.



Your notion that God doesn't make us endure pain or suffering is flat out wrong. Nowhere did God promise that our lives would be happy, or fun, or long.


Not true. Some of us understand the difference between knowledge and faith.



Clearly, if you have even a smidgen of faith in the bible, God is the cause of pain and suffering since He planned all this. Or are you saying that God's creation diverged from His plan?

Answer that question please. Seriously. Is everything that happens part of God's plan? Including the pain and suffering?

Is everything a part of Gods "plan"? Frankly, with respect to you, it seems you only have an elementary understanding of the nature of Omniscience. The way you phrase the question is inappropriate because it suggests God laid everything out in advance and no one can deviate from his plan. What then do we say of free will and the fall? The way you SHOULD phrase the question belies your error. Better to ask, does God have a plan for every contingency? This sir approaches what Christianity teaches about the nature of God, His foreknowledge, His plan, and Omniscience. But I shall digress, I am not going into an argument over the Christian theologians idea of Omniscience with you, as I said before, it has nothing to do with my argument.

This is the last time I am going to say this bigmike. In Christian theology, God makes us endure, you have that much right, but He is not RESPONSIBLE for what we endure. We brought that upon ourselves at the fall. God, then uses it all for our ultimate good, THUS LEAVING THE NATURE OF GOD AS "GOOD" intact.

If you keep insisting that historic, traditional, scholastically documented "Christianity" teaches that God is "not good", I will have no choice but to ignore you. I don't want to do that, I prefer conversation, but we have already achieved clarity on premise one. I will take clarity in lieu of agreement. Since you disagree with Christianity, there is no further reason for this discussion to continue on these lines. If you wish to attack premise two, or the conclusion, go for it, just remember, Christianity, the real Christianity, which has documented scholastic research into its historic teachings, disagrees with you on premise one, therefore I shall continue only on that basis and presupposition.

[bigmike82]

Christianity, the real Christianity....therefore I shall continue only on that basis and presupposition.

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.