Evolution vs. Creationism
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
Ok, I'll throw out a definition of God and give an example of what I mean:
G1. God is that entity which possesses the powers of consciousness, omnipotence, omniscience, perfect and infinite benevolence, must be worshiped and created the universe.
- Omnipotence is defined as "the power to do anything that is not logically contradictory."
- Omniscience is defined as "complete and total knowledge of everything, except that which is logically contradictory."
- Perfect and infinite benevolence is defined as "at all times makes things good, beneficial and healthy to other beings as the entity is capable of making them."
This would be a common definition for the Christian God, and this definition leads to atheism...this God is logically contradictory since omnipotence and perfect and infinite benevolence can not both be existent (unless you want to call this world created by an all-knowing God, who has all knowledge, including the future when he created this world, perfect, good, beneficial and maximum healthy...).
So, lets take a slightly different definition of God:
G2. God is that entity which possesses the powers of consciousness, omnipotence according to G1-1, omniscience according to G1-2, must be worshiped and created the universe.
This definition uses all the same criteria, except God is not perfectly benevolent. Using this definition, it is possible, which is: not logically contradictory, for God to exist, and so I can give an example of what this God would need to do to prove he holds the powers described.
PG2. Proof of the existence of God as defined in G2.
- To prove omnipotence, as defined in G1-1, this God must show himself to possess the ability to do, upon request, and repeatedly, actions that are deemed not logically impossible, but so extraordinary that they defy human conceptions of how the world works.
- To prove omniscience, the entity would have to be able to prove knowledge of facts, upon request and repeatedly, that are personal or otherwise extraordinarily unlikely for the entity to know otherwise. Because the entity also possesses omnipotence, the ability to put knowledge into the heads of others, or transport them to places unknown to them would be possible, which would serve as further proof.
- Must be worshiped is going to really throw people for one here...What I mean by "must" is that it would be insane or irrational to not worship the entity upon true knowledge of the entity. There is only one way to do this: fear. The entity, with its omnipotence, must threaten terrible consequences for those that don't worship it. If there are no bad consequences, then the entity isn't a "must" worship. In future definitions, if benevolence and "must be worshiped" are together...well...good luck. The only reason to worship this entity, upon the proving of its existence, is the real threat of terrible consequences should you not.
Where is the contradiciton in G1? You've said that omnipotence and benevolence can't coexist. I disagree. You are making the assumption that this physical reality you're currently experiencing is all that life is. But if you allow the existence of God you must also consider the possibility of an afterlife. And if you allow the possibility of an afterlife, you have to remember that infinite benevolence will consider the maximum good over all time - not just your lifetime.
As for the proof requirements of G2:
1 - It's far beyond human ability to create a universe, a planet, or even a moon as tiny as that is. Creating matter/energy is not something we can achieve.
2 - There are very many people who've had the experience where knowledge came to them that they "shouldn't" have had. Very many people on this board have had that experience too. If I discover knowledge in my mind that has no logical (from our perspective) source, that only means I've discounted every source but God.
3 - How do you define worship, Duty? And how does it logically flow that God must be worshiped or else God doesn't exist? And why must worship be fear-based?
As for the proof requirements of G2:
1 - It's far beyond human ability to create a universe, a planet, or even a moon as tiny as that is. Creating matter/energy is not something we can achieve.
2 - There are very many people who've had the experience where knowledge came to them that they "shouldn't" have had. Very many people on this board have had that experience too. If I discover knowledge in my mind that has no logical (from our perspective) source, that only means I've discounted every source but God.
3 - How do you define worship, Duty? And how does it logically flow that God must be worshiped or else God doesn't exist? And why must worship be fear-based?
You should find humor in this, as I did. Went to participate in a fishing tournament many years ago out of town. Could find noone to go as a partner. While entering the tournament and filling out the forms, I was asked where my partner was. I asked what they meant. They specifically then asked who my partner was. I told them "God". there was silence
They spoke to each other and one of them said to me, "If you can get God to sign this entry form on this line right here we will let Him be your partner."
of which I answered, "I could never ask of Him such a thing."
They offered a partner and I made a new friend.
They spoke to each other and one of them said to me, "If you can get God to sign this entry form on this line right here we will let Him be your partner."
of which I answered, "I could never ask of Him such a thing."
They offered a partner and I made a new friend.
If God is infinitely benevolent that means he, to the limits of his power, will provide the maximum, most perfect happiness, health, and etc to all living things. In his omniscience he would of had the foresight to see exactly how any possible world would have ended up, and he had the power to create any possible world (since he's omnipotent). He chose a world that includes suffering, that includes unhappiness, disease, death, and all manner of unpleasantness. God chose to create suffering, as he knew absolutely what he was creating...he knew the exact consequences of creating this world, and still chose to create suffering. If he is so benevolent and so powerful, he would have instead created a world where people are happy, where people do not suffer, and where we are perfectly fulfilled as people.
So, this definition of God is logically impossible. If God is omnipotent, then he can not be infinitely benevolent. I could argue that he can't be benevolent at all really...as he WANTS people to suffer (why else would he have willfully created this world of suffering?), and further, that he is either 1. slightly sadistic (get people to believe that if they don't worship him, they go to hell...but then not really do such a thing), 2. a narcissistic prick (worship me or go to hell...and mean it), or 3. really doesn't care (no penalty/reward for worship).
Ugh, this whole God concept is so absurd...every time I think about it I come up with more stuff like this...more points that just show the absurdities this concept leads to.
I'll have to get to the rest later, got to catch my ride.
It sounds to me like there's nothing God can give you - that he hasn't already - to prove his existence. Anything God does could be misinterpreted or doubted, so why should he go out of his way?
God could draw a huge smiley face on the moon. But that could be attributed to unknown human effort, meteor impacts, etc. People would find it really interesting, but not a proof of God.
God could whisk you away to an alternate reality for a time... and you could easily call it a hallucination or a bad drug trip or something.
God could cause an extra thumb to grow on your left hand in your sleep, and we'd call it accelerated growth / cellular mutation and go to the doctor's to get it removed.
God could turn Mars into swiss cheese, it'd be moldy by the time we noticed, and people would be going crazy over the whole life on Mars deal. :lol:
What I'm trying to illustrate is that there's really no "proof" of God to be found in "miraculous" happenings. If you're looking for God to not exist you'll find another way to explain it.
Why are we saying gods is infinitely benevolent? What if I am referring to the Greek God Zeus, dude was far from benevolent.
Am I interrupting?
Now you've mixed up the definition of benevolence while trying to tackle the Problem of Evil.
Benevolence is defined by the Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary as "disposition to do good." There is a difference between doing good and causing happiness. Happiness is an emotional high - above the norm - and is therefore not a tenable position. Doing good, on the other hand, won't always cause happiness - ask any parent about that.
Duty, God created the world, but we're the ones in charge of it. God could have stopped people from hurting each other. He could have stopped me from being a real jerk to a co-worker recently. But if God had, where would my free will be? I wouldn't be a free being - I'd be a mere robot, doing what I was forced to do. God could force you to believe in him against your will, but then you wouldn't be able to choose anymore. God could have stopped the pain in your life. He didn't. He loves all of his children, even those who are lost to hatred, even those who cause pain.
God didn't create suffering - we did. We blame God for not fixing our problems. But that doesn't solve the problems. That's only an excuse to snub God.
TLM and others - Purpose seems relative in the creation stories.
Taking the Judeo-Christian belief that God is completely perfect in Himself, he can have no purpose in creating any particular creature, because being perfect, no action or being, or action of a being can add anything to His perfection or contentment.
Any purpose in things is precisely that, purpose within the thing itself. If the purpose of man is to ultimately come to see God, that purpose is within himself. Moreover, that purpose can only be there if there is a capacity/tendency towards a particular end/goal within the creature itself.
So it seems pointless to discuss God's purpose in requiring people to believe in Him - God has no purpose, He simply has being.
The question is: what is our purpose in believing in God?
Taking the Judeo-Christian belief that God is completely perfect in Himself, he can have no purpose in creating any particular creature, because being perfect, no action or being, or action of a being can add anything to His perfection or contentment.
Any purpose in things is precisely that, purpose within the thing itself. If the purpose of man is to ultimately come to see God, that purpose is within himself. Moreover, that purpose can only be there if there is a capacity/tendency towards a particular end/goal within the creature itself.
So it seems pointless to discuss God's purpose in requiring people to believe in Him - God has no purpose, He simply has being.
The question is: what is our purpose in believing in God?
I think there was a specific Cherub that watched all God did so much he thought he could do those things, too. Therefore, there was war in Heaven and one of the Cherubim was cast out of Heaven. Evil, in its original form, existed before the creation of the world as we know it. Best analogy I have seen was George Burns in "Oh, God" part II, I think it was. Man thought he was talking to God. God said, "Oh, he's always wanted to be just like me."
Evil can appear to be good. I think what happened in the case of Eve may have been the first temptation with the first lie. back in a flash
I liked the possibilities tovlo presented in another thread preferring a bit of knowledge obtainable and allowing people(in government) and children(parenting) freedom of choice. I see no problems with the garden issue. The problem I had studying the Bible(I did say "had") was with Job.
It bothered me God would allow Satan to do whatever he would to Job except take his life to prove Job would not forsake his God. It bothered me even Job's wife said to him, "why don't you go ahead and curse God and die?" It must be comparable to painting a masterpiece to watch your work exhibit such character and such allegiance. Job was repaid many times over, but it did at first bother me.
If I were to choose to let that bother me today, it would bother me. I choose not to let it bother me any longer. Once again I have exercised my freedom of choice. Good night and Happy Easter.
Evil can appear to be good. I think what happened in the case of Eve may have been the first temptation with the first lie. back in a flash
I liked the possibilities tovlo presented in another thread preferring a bit of knowledge obtainable and allowing people(in government) and children(parenting) freedom of choice. I see no problems with the garden issue. The problem I had studying the Bible(I did say "had") was with Job.
It bothered me God would allow Satan to do whatever he would to Job except take his life to prove Job would not forsake his God. It bothered me even Job's wife said to him, "why don't you go ahead and curse God and die?" It must be comparable to painting a masterpiece to watch your work exhibit such character and such allegiance. Job was repaid many times over, but it did at first bother me.
If I were to choose to let that bother me today, it would bother me. I choose not to let it bother me any longer. Once again I have exercised my freedom of choice. Good night and Happy Easter.
Last edited:
How do you know that he didn't have to compromise because of the way humans understand things. And honestly would eternal sunshine really be worth while?
Maybe god knows that it isn't.
And if you want to get all technical he did try to prevent humans from knowing sadness but we screwed it up.
^^ That's true. Technically and according to Christianity, the original sin is what screwed all that up for us.
Doesn't matter. God, being omnipotent, could have created a world where we had free will, but didn't suffer (or, at least to have a way to turn off our "suffering switch"). He chose not to create that world, and instead created a world with suffering, with evil...etc
And you don't become a robot just because you don't suffer...
1. Doesn't matter. God doesn't have to compromise. He's OMNIPOTENT. He could have created ANY WORLD. He chose one with suffering. He chose one with evil.
2. God knew the first sin would happen. He is OMNISCIENT. He chose to create this world, with the sin, with the suffering, anyways.
Sorry for getting crappy about this. It's just getting frustrating, because in everyday life, people expect you to believe in God (at least everywhere I've lived). I'm tired of the looks I get when I try to be calm and rational about this subject. It's really hard to remain at all non-emotional when your objectivity is almost always repaid with suspicion and disgust. It's enough to make even an INTP angry...
I know how you feel. I ranted in length about this on that other forum.
A good quote...
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
-Daniel Boorstin
There are so many inaccuracies and contradictions in the Bible and so many historical foibles on the part of Christianity that some Christians have to dedicate immense time and energy to forming rationalizations in order to perpetuate their belief in a 2,000 year old fairy tale. That is the kind of "knowledge" that those of kind of people have dedicated their lives to acquiring because they lack the critical thinking ability necessary to suspend their belief long enough to truly evaluate it.
I don't take issue with that, I just find it really, really sad. Of course, they find me really, really sad because in their teleologically biased world, I will spend an eternity burning in a lake of fire for daring to not believe in their invisible, egotistical friend that they just usually happen to believe in because of where and when they were born.
And that is where the laughable absurdity is. If I had been born in a Christian's shoes, then at this moment I could have been on a quest to defend my religious faith from the encroachment of "grave sins" like homosexuality and if one of them was born in my shoes then they could have been looking for a date at the local gay bar.
The only certainty I can find from this ludicrous world is that we each have our own lives to live, our own truths to derive and fight for, and our own ways to share love with one another. Some Christians choose to share their love by condemning people who follow a different truth than them. Very recently I came to the decision that I refuse to follow a childish path like that and I'm going to try my best not to condemn those who take issue with homosexuality. To borrow from that book that the Christians adore, I wish to love others as much or more as I love myself. Not so much because I think they deserve it, but because I can't think of a bigger f**k you to the Christians than loving them more than they could ever love me.
So I can respect that they will fight to protect their conception of gender roles and marriage because of their silly book. After all, we all want what we feel is best for everyone. And I'll fight for the rights I feel I deserve. Not by condemning those who oppose me, but by exposing the fault in their logic and by demonstrating why I am worthy of those rights. Even if I never win a single right, it's a battle I could never lose.