Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bradskii said:
So God has decided that allowing the child’s death is the only way of preventing a greater evil. It beats me what the point of being omnipotent is.
Click to expand...
His omnipotence and omniscience allows him to know a greater good. Thus he is justified in not acting.

If you know that there is not a greater good, then you would have an argument. But you do not, that is why you are compelled to point out how horrible a situation is instead of dealing with the logic of it.

It would be wrong for God to stop evil from befalling me if he knew there was a greater good by allowing it. It might be emotionally satisfying for me for God to stop evil, but it would wrong nonetheless. God knows this is not something i find desirable and often times i am angered at God, but i do not know what God knows. God sees beyond the horizon, i do not.

The problem of evil has always been an emotionally powerful argument, but it doesn’t work as a deductive argument because there is a lack of knowledge involved. And if one has other reasons for thinking there is a God, then the problem of evil isn’t as reasonable as one might think.
 
Last edited:
PhiriTalk said:
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true - #9042 by Bradskii

The power of omnipotence doesn’t have to be exercised in an authoritarian fashion. What’s the point of free will, if God’s just gonna make your decisions for you?

Prayer isn’t like rubbing the lamp from Aladdin and making a wish, it’s a conversation. And God answers “nope” all the time.

God is above good and evil, it’s all gonna end up the same for God in the end, God’s gift is free will and ability to think and make choices. Things like murder which are so clearly wrong, that only someone who is actively choosing the bad choice would ever commit murder. God says “thou shall not kill”, super cut and dry.
Click to expand...
Maybe we need an eleventh commandment. ‘Don’t fall down mine shafts’. We couldn’t fault Him then. Failing that, I reserve the right.

Not that the kid made a free will choice to die that way anyway.
 
Frankly I’d have no problem with it. I don’t mean to wish ill on them or anything, but based on what you have said, they could certainly have prevented this death, though I admittedly have scant details here.

It’s appears to be parental maleficence. Why weren’t they supervising their child? Why weren’t didn’t they put their child in the care of someone who could supervise?

This is the same as a parent who refuses to vaccinate their child.
 
PhiriTalk said:
Frankly I’d have no problem with it. I don’t mean to wish ill on them or anything, but based on what you have said, they could certainly have prevented this death, though I admittedly have scant details here.

It’s appears to be parental maleficence. Why weren’t they supervising their child? Why weren’t didn’t they put their child in the care of someone who could supervise?

This is the same as a parent who refuses to vaccinate their child.
Click to expand...
Gee, I thought most people would have backed down. I love the bit ‘I would have no problem with it’.

Doubling down on that takes something special.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true Philosophy
Maybe we need an eleventh commandment. ‘Don’t fall down mine shafts’. We couldn’t fault Him then. Failing that, I reserve the right. Not that the kid made a free will choice to die that way anyway.
Click to expand...
“The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps.” -Proverbs 14:15
 
IWantGod said:
40.png
Bradskii:
So God has decided that allowing the child’s death is the only way of preventing a greater evil. It beats me what the point of being omnipotent is.
Click to expand...
His omnipotence and omniscience allows him to know a greater good. Thus he is justified in not acting.

If you know that there is not a greater good, then you would have an argument. But you do not, that is why you are compelled to point out how horrible a situation is instead of dealing with the logic of it.

It would be wrong for God to stop evil from befalling me if he knew there was a greater good by allowing it. It might be emotionally satisfying for me for God to stop evil, but it would wrong nonetheless. God knows this is not something i find desirable and often times i am angered at God, but i do not know what God knows. God sees beyond the horizon, i do not.

The problem of evil has always been an emotionally powerful argument, but it doesn’t work as a deductive argument because there is a lack of knowledge involved. And if one has other reasons for thinking there is a God, then the problem of evil isn’t as reasonable as one might think.
Click to expand...
I appreciate that it’s a problem. For you guys. That there must be a greater good is based on nothing at all. It’s just that it’s the only card you are holding. You have no choice but to play it.
 
40.png
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true Philosophy
Gee, I thought most people would have backed down. I love the bit ‘I would have no problem with it’. Doubling down on that takes something special.
Click to expand...
I see nothing wrong with holding parents to a higher standard of accountability for those they bring into the world. Pro-life means that people are take care of after they are born too.

It’s hard to assign blame though because I don’t have all the facts in this case, I’m literally going on what you’ve said about it.
 
40.png
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true Philosophy
His omnipotence and omniscience allows him to know a greater good. Thus he is justified in not acting. If you know that there is not a greater good, then you would have an argument. But you do not, that is why you are compelled to point out how horrible a situation is instead of dealing with the logic of it. It would be wrong for God to stop evil from befalling me if he knew there was a greater good by allowing it. It might be emotionally satisfying for me for God to stop evil, but it would w…
Click to expand...
How do you determine what is good and bad and between?
 
Bradskii said:
It’s just that it’s the only card you are holding
Click to expand...
It may very well be the only card i am holding. But it stands to reason that God knows more than you know considering the finite perspective you have of things. lool. And God would be justified in not acting if he knows a greater good. And i think we can all reasonably point out scenarios were it would be a greater good not to act. Thus we have very little reason to assume that God doesn’t have good reasons so long as his goals are consistent with the greater good, the purpose for which he created us.

Not only that, i have other good reasons for thinking that there is a God and that there really is such a thing as good.

Thus i am justified in believing in a good God.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
40.png
Bradskii:
It’s just that it’s the only card you are holding
Click to expand...
It may very well be the only card i am holding. But it stands to reason that God knows more than you know considering the finite perspective you have of things. lool. And God would be justified in not acting if he knows a greater good. And i think we can all reasonably point out scenarios were it would be a greater good not to act. Thus we have very little reason to assume that God doesn’t have good reasons so long as his goals are consistent with the greater good, the purpose for which he created us.

Not only that, i have other good reasons for thinking that there is a God and that there really is such a thing as good.

Thus i am justified in believing in a good God.
Click to expand...
Then all bad things must be for the greater good. By your definition. We should celebrate them. Well, maybe if it happens to nearest and dearest, perbaps not. But if I hadn’t told you about the Spanish kid and just suggested something like that might happen, then your response must be that gratitude would be in order in that some greater evil had been averted.

You should browse the papers every day checking out murders and rapes and multiple deaths by suicide bombers and then give thanks for the greater good being accomplished. If you are really convinced of your argument that is.
 
I am sorry if that came off poorly, not my intention.

I just want to know where you derive your morality from? Why is it to you that falling down a mineshaft is bad and not good?

Catholics do, or are at least supposed to, use critical thinking to rationality evaluate a situation based on their observations before making a decision. Where do atheists derive their morality from? There’s obviously nothing preventing an atheist from being a moral, good person, I just don’t what causes them to be moral, good people.
 
Last edited:
And to my original point, things are the way they are regardless of what anyone does or does not believe. Vaccines work and are safe regardless of what anti-vaxers say. Global anthropogenic climate change is occurring and causing harm to the global biosphere regardless of what climate deniers say. LGBT people don’t choose to be who they are regardless of what homophobes say. Melanin has no affect on intelligence or proclivity for crime no matter what the racists think. Evolution occurs regardless of what the creationists think. It just does.
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
Then all bad things must be for the greater good. By your definition.
Click to expand...
No. The argument is that the existence of suffering does not deductively exclude the existence of a Good God because we do not know that God has no good reason for allowing it.
Bradskii said:
You should browse the papers every day checking out murders and rapes and multiple deaths by suicide bombers and then give thanks for the greater good being accomplished.
Click to expand...
If you know there is such a thing as evil, then you should know that there is such a thing as good. Otherwise i don’t see why it would bother you at all. Obviously you must see that there is a way that things ought to be; but there can be know such thing as an ought without God, and you cannot seriously be expecting me to take your biologically induced preference as a measure.

Much like materialism, your position is self refuting. You have valid emotional responses to these situations but you are not considering the metaphysical reality of those emotional experiences. If those emotions have any real objective significance at all, my position becomes the more rational one by default.
 
Last edited:
PhiriTalk said:
I am sorry if that came off poorly, not my intention.

I just want to know where you derive your morality from? Why is it to you that falling down a mineshaft is bad and not good?

Catholics do, or are at least supposed to, use critical thinking to rationality evaluate a situation based on their observations before making a decision. Where do atheists derive their morality from? There’s obviously nothing preventing an atheist from being a moral, good person, I just don’t what causes them to be moral, good people.
Click to expand...
Apology accepted. Forum discussions are difficult to determine meaning and intent sometimes. The written word is limited in many ways.

As to whence morality, it’s a simple matter of evolved principles which allowed societies to grow (do not murder, do not steal etc) coupled with empathe and reciprocal altruism. Or the golden rule, if you’d prefer. Most moral precepts can be explained using those three.
 
There is still no statement of origin there. I agree that those principles come with a more enlightened society, but I see it as an critical effort to better know the mind of God, or even for Cosmos to know itself.

I don’t necessarily agree with the golden rule in its absolute either, especially as I think I view morality as being fluid and subject to change. I don’t want to be treated as someone else would want to be treated, I want to be treated as I would want to be treated.
 
pulchraesamicamea said:
To help @buffalo understand this concept, our cells have ‘powerhouses’ called mitochondria that carry out important tasks in a cell. A mitochondrion has its own DNA called mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) and this is inherited only through the mother. So, if the concept of Mitochondrial Eve is true (which is thought to be the most recent common ancestor through matrilineality), it means that the mtDNA of ‘Mitochondrial Eve’ may have been inherited by all females through female-to-offspring inheritance.
Click to expand...
It is now known that the father can pass mtDNA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top