Creationism and Evolutionism coexist.

[Timothysis]

Even granting that this word salad actually means something, the process of reconciling an intelligently designing god with the facts of nature requires the abandonment of at least some of the supposed characteristics of the theistic god. Even Epicurus, some hundreds of years before the advent of Christianity, understood this -

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent; is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent; is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

I find this kind of reasoning to be akin to a child who complains that his parents won’t let him have chocolate cake for supper. All of the facts must be understood before accusations can be made.

 

[inocente]

Not only that! But it is obvious that some people want a god made in the image of themselves and their particular take on life. In addition, when people are not happy in the way they expect, then they dismiss god or rather they return the “spiritual” god to the image factory and look for another factory in the material “scienific” world. (sorry for the rant)

Are you suggesting a Big Mac and fries with Pepsi is not a spiritual experience?

And you call yourself an American?

 

[ricmat]

Some versions of God have the player nudging the cue ball during the course of the shot because things aren’t going quite right. I see those versions of God as inferior.

rossum

The only one proposing this version of God is you. You propose it as a straw man for your own purposes.

Perhaps this is God’s intent. If it is God’s intent to nudge the cue ball, then why is it inferior that he nudges the cue ball?

You can’t believe that this is God’s intent because it would not be your intent. For you, natural laws exist independently of God and God must somehow utilize them to the fullest extent, without interference, in order to not be an “inferior” God.

The revealed God of Christianity is one that interacts with his creation very regularly.

 

[Walcot]

The only one proposing this version of God is you. You propose it as a straw man for your own purposes.

Perhaps this is God’s intent. If it is God’s intent to nudge the cue ball, then why is it inferior that he nudges the cue ball?

You can’t believe that this is God’s intent because it would not be your intent. For you, natural laws exist independently of God and God must somehow utilize them to the fullest extent, without interference, in order to not be an “inferior” God.

The revealed God of Christianity is one that interacts with his creation very regularly.

Then ‘he’ must be that sadist!!

 

[Peter_Plato]

Then ‘he’ must be that sadist!!

That assumes he delights in suffering.

That also assumes that the value of suffering or enjoyment exceeds the value of being, which is far from established.

When you take a toy from a young child, the child is in great distress because it thinks its entire world is wrapped up in that toy. The child cannot see beyond the toy. A parent is not a sadist because s/he allows the child to be distressed for a time.

Perhaps suffering, despite the fact that some cannot see beyond it, is not the yardstick by which all else is to be measured. God may be insisting that we “get over it” by greatness of being, just as the child must get over its distress when the toy is removed.

Sure suffering exists and I have had my share of it, but I wouldn’t trade away the meaning of existence and the possibility of having come into existence because of the fact of suffering. This is could be creating a mountain out of a mole hill, or a terrifying night spectre out of a shadow on the wall from a perspective beyond one’s present ego, where God resides.

Sure, in the middle of the night when you are left alone with your imagination that shadow may appear to be daunting and irrepressible, but shadows get chased away by the light. Perhaps suffering is that kind of phenomenon in God’s view, because the power to extinguish the frightening specters that we have made the shadows to be is in his power.
Why are the shadows so daunting at this moment? His answer is to trust him.
To claim that God cannot exist because I am overwhelmed by my emotional responses to things around me is necessarily a self-centered way of seeing the world and philosophizing.

 

[rossum]

The only one proposing this version of God is you. You propose it as a straw man for your own purposes.

It is also proposed by the Intelligent Design people, who have their Designer intervening at various times to tweak things. That version of God is inferior.

rossum

 

[Walcot]

That assumes he delights in suffering.

That also assumes that the value of suffering or enjoyment exceeds the value of being, which is far from established.

When you take a toy from a young child, the child is in great distress because it thinks its entire world is wrapped up in that toy. The child cannot see beyond the toy. A parent is not a sadist because s/he allows the child to be distressed for a time.

Perhaps suffering, despite the fact that some cannot see beyond it, is not the yardstick by which all else is to be measured. God may be insisting that we “get over it” by greatness of being, just as the child must get over its distress when the toy is removed.

Sure suffering exists and I have had my share of it, but I wouldn’t trade away the meaning of existence and the possibility of having come into existence because of the fact of suffering. This is could be creating a mountain out of a mole hill, or a terrifying night spectre out of a shadow on the wall from a perspective beyond one’s present ego, where God resides.

Sure, in the middle of the night when you are left alone with your imagination that shadow may appear to be daunting and irrepressible, but shadows get chased away by the light. Perhaps suffering is that kind of phenomenon in God’s view, because the power to extinguish the frightening specters that we have made the shadows to be is in his power.
Why are the shadows so daunting at this moment? His answer is to trust him.
To claim that God cannot exist because I am overwhelmed by my emotional responses to things around me is necessarily a self-centered way of seeing the world and philosophizing.

I absolutely agree with your last sentence. So I’m not saying that. I can understand how people philosophise about HUMAN suffering and try to make it fit with ‘god’. And it’s very difficult for them to completely see beyond ‘ego’.
I was looking at the rest of the animal kingdom. Life is red in tooth and claw even out in your nice garden!! Nature looks ‘cruel’ to us - it isn’t of course - it just IS and it is full of suffering. We philosophise about our part in this suffering because we are aware of our own mortality.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It is also proposed by the Intelligent Design people, who have their Designer intervening at various times to tweak things. That version of God is inferior.

rossum

Why is the active creation of a musical piece by a musician, inferior, in kind, from a craft produced all at once by a craftsman? Sorry, I don’t see your point. It may seem inferior to you, but that is not an argument.

The universe could, and necessarily is, being actively created now precisely because time is an aspect of the universe, not outside of it. Time is in the universe, because time started with the Big Bang, so it is a part of the “product” like the time signature in a musical score determines the nature of the piece as it is being created.

Sorry, but I believe your version is inadequate to explain the kind of thing that is being created when we understand how the universe is sustained in existence.

 

[ricmat]

It is also proposed by the Intelligent Design people, who have their Designer intervening at various times to tweak things. That version of God is inferior.

rossum

Desiring to tweak is a lot different than “must tweak because of being inferior.”

You put constraints on God’s actions by insisting that he do it in a way that you believe is not inferior - which is to design a system that acts on it’s own without further involvement. Why is it inferior? Because you say so? And the irony is, that you yourself propose that God “designed” this wonderful system while simultaneously attacking ID…!

Tweaking (as you put it) provides us reminders that God exists, and is continuously looking after his children. Without it, we might be tempted to think that God doesn’t exist or doesn’t care. If you fail to see God interfering in your life, then you are missing a lot.

God interacts with the world continuously. He immediately causes it to remain in being, for every instant. He doesn’t “let it coast for a while.” Every instant of our lives, he is actively loving us, giving us gifts, waiting for us to use his gifts, waiting for us to respond to his love.

 

[ricmat]

The established facts I had in mind are the necessity that some organisms die horribly because, for whatever reason, they are not adapted sufficiently to their environment to survive and reproduce. Even some of those that do reproduce die horribly after having done so - salmon are a good example. If there is a god designing and watching all this, said god must be a sadist of the first order.

You forgot. Pity the poor matter and antimatter particles which meet and annihilate each other. How could God permit such a thing?

 

[edwest2]

My belief is that there is a source, God. He started the Big Bang. That God has little influence on our world, that he let things evolve to the way things are now. And when he does have an influence it changes that persons life forever. So, God created everything, but he let everything evolve.

To me that makes sense.

Evolution is a banned topic. And the more I see threads like this, the more I’m convinced that it’s not as advertised.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Walcot]

Evolution is a banned topic. And the more I see threads like this, the more I’m convinced that it’s not as advertised.

Peace,
Ed

But this is an interesting thread of philosophy, it all keeps us on your toes, makes us think and also see how others think. I really want to see what others think - that’s why I joined this forum. I’m willing to listen - it’s too easy to get stuck in a’ philosophical rut’ if you’re not challenged sometimes. If people can remain civil to each other in their disagreement (that’s a good exercise!) then please don’t ban their discussions! I don’t know why the old ban was imposed - I’m guessing it was because people got rude to each other? The issues won’t go away by banning their discussion - I’m interested to get the Catholic perspective and I don’t know any Catholics…

 

[grannymh]

But this is an interesting thread of philosophy, it all keeps us on your toes, makes us think and also see how others think. I really want to see what others think - that’s why I joined this forum. I’m willing to listen - it’s too easy to get stuck in a’ philosophical rut’ if you’re not challenged sometimes. If people can remain civil to each other in their disagreement (that’s a good exercise!) then please don’t ban their discussions! I don’t know why the old ban was imposed - I’m guessing it was because people got rude to each other? The issues won’t go away by banning their discussion - I’m interested to get the Catholic perspective and I don’t know any Catholics…

Would love to answer you.