Evolution vs. Creationism

Lets say for a minute that we were created by something and there was purpose other than just being and that we were destined for something. What would that destiny be?
 
Duty said:
It's hard to give an example for an entity that is itself difficult to define. Still, I could go through different common definitions and say what I'd expect for that God to do to prove he is what is said in that definition.
Click to expand...

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.

  1. Omnipotence is defined as "the power to do anything that is not logically contradictory."
  2. Omniscience is defined as "complete and total knowledge of everything, except that which is logically contradictory."
  3. 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.


  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
 
I just thought of something even more simple too...

if God is so great, couldn't he think of a way to make his existence known to me...one that I couldn't doubt? Not much of a God if he couldn't set it up himself.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Milon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Duty said:
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.
Click to expand...

The word
 
Duty said:
It's hard to give an example for an entity that is itself difficult to define. Still, I could go through different common definitions and say what I'd expect for that God to do to prove he is what is said in that definition.
Click to expand...

Duty said:
if God is so great, couldn't he think of a way to make his existence known to me...one that I couldn't doubt? Not much of a God if he couldn't set it up himself.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Duty said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. :wink:
 
anahata said:
Final purpose?

And all this stuff about eve, well think of it from her point of view. Paradise on a plate and you're told not to do something, she had absolutely no experience of pain so why would she fear something? She just wanted to know shit.
Click to expand...

Was eve an NT
???
 
Duty said:
Irrelevant. God is supposedly omnipotent. If God has the power to do anything he wills, and is benevolent, then we should all be happy and healthy all the time. God purposely created evil and suffering. He knew, with omniscience, all the possible worlds, and with being omnipotent, could have created any possible world. He chose to create one where the living beings in it suffer MISERABLY. He chose to create one where the beings in it rape each other, murder each other, electrocute each others' testicles, send each other to gas chambers and systematically torture each other. God, if he is indeed the creator, is omnipotent, and is omniscient, has chosen to create humans that suffer immeasurably.

God knew what he was doing when he created the world. He either got off on the thought of all this pain, or didn't care that it would happen. All the piss poor attempts at solving this problem of evil have done little to convince me that, if such a God exists, he has committed the greatest moral atrocity to ever plague existence itself.

Yes, I know it's harsh. It's probably offensive to some of you, blasphemous or whatever you want to say about it...but it's hard to see how a God could be so powerful and knowledgeable, and yet still be seen as the greatest "good guy" to ever exist. I find it insulting to my intelligence that such a thing has been suggested...and even further, without proof that this entity even exists in the first place.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Duty said:
Irrelevant. God is supposed to be omnipotent. He can make it so there is only happiness and that it actually is happiness. He had the power to make everyone happy all the time but chose not to.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Milon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...

Lucifer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Duty said:
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...
Click to expand...

I know how you feel. I ranted in length about this on that other forum.

Debates like these are why I follow absurdism.

Faith is the method in which we believe that we can derive truth. To act on faith is absurd, but virtually all people act on faith. Whether it is faith in a Holy Scripture or faith in empirically derived evidence or faith in reason through deduction; it is still a faith that at one point in time a person reflected upon and chose to act on before all the others.

It is laughable that any human being believes they know the Truth in a world of so many truths. People usually create meaning in their own lives, whether it is religion, spirituality, politics, science, whatever.
Click to expand...
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. :D

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.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top