Sunday, July 8, 2012

Evolution Professor: Evolution Reconciles “Gross Evil and Suffering in the World”

David Hume was not expressing a minority opinion when his character Philo triumphantly concluded against creationism because “a perpetual war is kindled amongst all living creatures,” and that nature is arranged so as “to embitter the life of every living being.” The belief that God never would have intended for this bad world reached back to antiquity and continues today. As evolution professor John Avise affirms:

Evolution by natural causes emancipates religion from the shackles of theodicy. No longer need we agonize about why a Creator God is the world’s leading abortionist and mass murderer. No longer need we query a Creator God’s motives for debilitating countless innocents with horrific genetic conditions. No longer must we anguish about the interventionist motives of a supreme intelligence that permits gross evil and suffering in the world. No longer need we be tempted to blaspheme an omnipotent Deity by charging Him directly responsible for human frailties and physical shortcomings (including those that we now understand to be commonplace at molecular and biochemical levels). No longer need we blame a Creator God’s direct hand for any of these disturbing empirical facts. Instead, we can put the blame squarely on the agency of insentient, natural evolutionary causation. In part for this reason, the evolutionary biologist and philosopher Francisco J. Ayala has hailed the discovery of natural selection as “Darwin’s gift to science and religion.” [Inside the Human Genome, 157-8]

This is the reason why evolution is a fact. No Creator God would have intended for this world. From a scientific perspective, the theory of evolution is a non starter.

Fossil species appear abruptly in diversity Big Bangs followed by extinctions.

Adaptations that we do observe in populations arise quickly as a result of complex mechanisms that respond to the environmental challenge. Not only does this falsify evolutionary expectations, it also fails to fulfill the hope that the large-scale evolution requires can be explained as repeated rounds of adaptive change.

Sister species reveal, upon close inspection, dramatic differences for which evolution cannot account. And distant species reveal repeated designs. Incredible convergence is ubiquitous in biology and the evolutionary tree has consistently failed to explain the pattern of similarities and difference between the species.

And of course evolution cannot explain how even a single protein arose, to say nothing of the never-ending series of fantastic biological designs. Evolution is so astronomically unlikely that it far exceeds what scientists ordinarily take as impossible.

That doesn’t mean we can know that evolution is impossible. But we do know that the claim that evolution is a fact is not scientific.

It would be difficult to find, in the history of science, an idea that is held with more confidence and is more unlikely. It literally is today’s “Emperor’s New Clothes” tale with the twist that Hans Christian Andersen’s royalty is replaced by religion.

Avise’s sentiment in the above passage is typical. Evolution is underwritten by religious mandates. Evolution is a fact, yes, but that fact is metaphysical. Evolutionists provide a great many proofs of their fact, but the proofs always entail theological premises.

52 comments:

  1. This is the reason why evolution is a fact. No Creator God would have intended for this world.

    I don't follow the logic here. A malign or incompetent Creator God would explain the existence of natural evils such as earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, droughts, congenital diseases, plagues and cancers – to name just a few.

    Evolution need not enter the picture. Indeed, it didn't for millenia and still doesn't in most minds.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The main failure in the atheist's argument from evil is that the atheist's argument ends up denying the objective reality of good. Yet if good is not objectively real how can the atheist possibly make claims against the 'good' way he considers things 'ought' to be? The atheist must hold to some standard of good, which he personally considers objectively real, in order to make his argument from evil! It is a self defeating argument!!,,, To see how this self defeating argument works out, Richard Dawkins, a few months back, refused to debate William Lane Craig at Oxford because Dawkins claimed that Craig was evil for approving of 'infanticide' in the Old Testament, yet it turned out, when the dust had settled, that Dawkins was the one who, hypocritically, approved infanticide not Craig!

    Richard Dawkins Approves Infanticide, not William Lane Craig! - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmodkyJvhFo

    The atheist simply has no moral basis in which to hold that infanticide or anything else in this world is evil!

    In fact Dr. Craig considers the moral argument one of the most powerful arguments for God and calls Dawkins out for holding resolutely to the objective reality of morality which Dawkins cannot base in his atheistic worldview!

    Richard Dawkins and the Moral Argument for God by William Lane Craig - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f3I2QGpucs

    Unlike Dawkins, atheist Sam Harris recognized this deep flaw in the atheists argument from evil and tried to come up with a objective moral basis to argue from. Dr Craig, in what he calls a 'knock down argument', shows how Harris's argument completely fails to account for objective morality:

    The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris' moral landscape argument – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL_vAH2NIPc

    Here is a humorous video that gets the same point across in a much easier to understand way:

    This following video humorously reveals the bankruptcy that atheists have in trying to ground beliefs, any beliefs, within a materialistic, genetic reductionism, worldview;

    John Cleese – The Scientists – humorous video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXo

    further notes:

    Objective Morality (1 of 5) - William Lane Craig - video playlist
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sPn_cIh_Cg&feature=bf_prev&list=PL3DBE77BB622A22F7

    Hitler & Darwin, pt. 2: Richard Weikart on Evolutionary Ethics - podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-11-30T15_33_04-08_00

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bornagain77 July 8, 2012 3:30 AM

      The main failure in the atheist's argument from evil is that the atheist's argument ends up denying the objective reality of good. Yet if good is not objectively real how can the atheist possibly make claims against the 'good' way he considers things 'ought' to be? The atheist must hold to some standard of good, which he personally considers objectively real, in order to make his argument from evil! It is a self defeating argument!!


      "Once more unto the breach, dear friends...!"

      If objective means anything, it refers to that which exists regardless of whether someone is aware of it or is thinking about it or believes in it. An example I have used before is that of a red car in the parking-lot outside my window. I assume that car exists and will continue to be there whether or not I happen to looking at it. On the other hand my opinion of that particular color red exists only in my mind. When I'm gone, so is that opinion. The fact that others might share that opinion does not make it objective. If all those who share my opinion were snuffed out, the car would still exist and so would its color. The opinion would not.

      By this argument any objective morality must exist regardless of who thinks about it or is aware of it or supports it. Also, if it is a part of objective reality like, say, gravity, then we are all subject to it just as we are to the effects of gravity.

      If an objective morality is one that applies to all then that must include any deities, like the Christian god. If they are held to be exempt, for some reason, then that morality is not truly objective.

      The problem with this is that judged by Christianity's own morality, the one that is supposed to be objective and binding on all, God's behavior, as reported in the Old Testament, is clearly immoral. The fundamental contradiction in Christianity is that the OT God is seen ignoring the morality He wants to impose on His creatures whenever it suits Him. How can a God that behaves immorally have any authority to impose morality on us?

      On the other hand, the claim that whatever God decrees is moral because He decrees it is self-defeating. If you argue that the moral opinions of individuals like ourselves are of no value because they are subjective, then the same must apply to God's. Trying to exempt Him on the grounds of something like God is Goodness commits the fallacy of special pleading - 'God is a special case because I say so'. It doesn't get you or your god off the hook.

      Delete
    2. "On the other hand, the claim that whatever God decrees is moral because He decrees it is self-defeating."

      Your failure in reasoning here is to fail to realize that God does not decree something to be good apart from Himself. Whatever God declares to be good is good because God is the very definition of what is good by his 'maximally great' nature. i.e. There is no separation between what is objectively good and what is God!

      note:

      "I think that what this objection is really getting at is the claim that it’s somehow arbitrary to adopt God’s nature as the Good. But every moral realist theory has to have an explanatory stopping point at which one reaches the ultimate good. Anyone who broaches a moral theory is entitled to identify whatever he wants as his ultimate explanatory stopping point. The question, then, will be, is the explanatory ultimate posited by some moral theory plausible? In the case of theism, taking God to be one’s explanatory ultimate is, I think, eminently plausible. For the very concept of God is the concept of a necessary, metaphysically ultimate being, one, moreover, that is worthy of worship. Indeed, He is the greatest conceivable being , and it is greater to be the Good than merely to reflect it. So the theist’s stopping point, in contrast to, say, the humanist’s, is not at all arbitrary or premature. - William Lane Craig
      http://www.reasonablefaith.org/moral-argument-for-god

      Delete
    3. bornagain77 July 8, 2012 7:01 AM

      [...]

      Your failure in reasoning here is to fail to realize that God does not decree something to be good apart from Himself. Whatever God declares to be good is good because God is the very definition of what is good by his 'maximally great' nature. i.e. There is no separation between what is objectively good and what is God!


      That is special pleading: God is good and incapable of evil or behaving immorally because we say so and that makes Him a special case.

      But the Old Testament accounts directly contradict that claim so you have either to discard the Old Testament as being unreliable, which calls into question the reliability of the whole book, or you must abandon the claim that God is maximally good and incapable of evil.

      The other problem is with this claim of maximal greatness. For a being to be the greatest of all it must, presumably, be superlative in all senses: the most wise, the strongest, all-knowing etc. So does this claim to maximal greatness also include the greatest evil? If it does then it undermines the claim that God is maximally good, if it doesn't, then some other being is maximally evil which leaves God as not being the greatest in all possible senses.

      Delete
    4. Ian you state:

      "That is special pleading: God is good and incapable of evil or behaving immorally because we say so and that makes Him a special case."

      No it actually logically follows from the necessary characteristics of a 'maximally great Being':

      The Ontological Argument (The Introduction) - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQPRqHZRP68

      Ontological Argument For God From The Many Worlds Hypothesis - William Lane Craig - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4784641

      God Is Not Dead Yet – William Lane Craig – Page 4
      The ontological argument. Anselm’s famous argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue:

      1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
      2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
      3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
      4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
      5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
      6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
      7. Therefore, God exists.

      Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2–7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God’s existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God’s existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it’s impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn’t appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being which is all-powerful, all knowing, and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God’s existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist.
      http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html?start=4

      I like the concluding comment about the ontological argument from the following Dr. Plantinga video:

      "God then is the Being that couldn't possibly not exit."

      Ontological Argument – Dr. Plantinga (3:50 minute mark)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXvVcWFrGQ

      Delete
    5. Be careful to watch the first video I listed so as to get a handle on the necessary characteristics of a 'maximally great Being'. i.e. it impossible for a maximally Great Being to have any 'lesser making' qualities! And as weird as it may sound, this following video refines the Ontological argument into a proof that, because of the characteristic of ‘maximally great love’, God must exist in more than one person:

      The Ontological Argument for the Triune God - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGVYXog8NUg

      Moreover, it is very peculiar to point out that atheists have conceded the necessary premise to the ontological argument by their appeal to the multiverse. Using the materialist/atheist same line of reasoning for an infinity of multiverses to 'explain away' the extreme fine-tuning of this one we can thusly surmise; If it is infinitely possible for God to exist then He, of 100% certainty, must exist no matter how small the probability is of His existence in one of these other infinity of universes, and since He certainly must exist in some possible world then he must exist in all possible worlds since all possibilities in all universes automatically become subject to Him since He is, by definition, transcendent and infinitely Powerful.,,, The atheist simply is self-defeated with the multiverse because of the ontological argument!

      Delete
    6. Ian you keep using the Old Testament in which God judges evil as if this negates God's goodness. This simply does not follow for it is impossible for evil to exist with God and thus God, as a maximally great being, has every right to judge evil and bring it to an end whenever and however He chooses to do so. You have several misconceptions tied up in your reasoning. But perhaps first and foremost you should take note of the reality and severity of God's judgments on evil!

      The following video is downright eye-opening with its archeological evidence for authenticity of the Bible:

      The Physical Ashen Remains Of Sodom and Gomorrah - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwTVFk1HK3Y

      But perhaps the greatest example of the severity of God's judgement on evil is the The Jewish Diaspora in which the Jewish people were persecuted and without a homeland for over 2000 years because they had disobeyed God's commandments. Moreover, the Diaspora was only brought to an end by WWII and the horrors of the holocaust:

      The Precisely Fulfilled Prophecy Of Israel Becoming A Nation In 1948 - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041241

      The Miracle of the Restoration of the Nation of Israel - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydwxy9yqhzM

      Bible Prophecy Fulfilled - Israel 1948 - article
      Excerpt: Although July 15, 537 B.C. can not be verified by outside sources as the exact day of Cyrus's proclamation, we do know that 537 B.C. was the year in which he made it. As such, we can know for certain that the Bible, in one of the most remarkable prophecies in history, accurately foresaw the year of Israel's restoration as an independent nation some two thousand five hundred years before the event occurred.
      http://ezinearticles.com/?Bible-Prophecy-Fulfilled---Israel-1948&id=449317

      The preceding start date, used in the prophecy calculation, is confirmed by the archaeological record:

      SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
      Excerpt "In late years several cuneiform tablets have been discovered pertaining to the fall of Babylon which peg both Biblical and secular historic dates. The one tablet known as the "Nabunaid Chronicle" gives the date for the fall of Babylon which specialists have ascertained as being October 12-13, 539 B.C., Julian Calendar, or October 6-7, 539 B.C., according to our present Gregorian Calendar. This tablet also says that Cyrus made his triumphant entry into Babylon 16 days after its fall to his army. Thus his accession year commenced in October, 539 B.C. However, in another cuneiform tablet called "Strassmaier, Cyrus No. 11" Cyrus’ first regnal year is mentioned and was determined to have begun March 17-18, 538 B.C., and to have concluded March 4-5, 537 B.C. It was in this first regnal year of Cyrus that he issued his decree to permit the Jews to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple. (Ezra 1:1) The decree may have been made in late 538 B.C. or before March 4-5, 537 B.C.
      In either case this would have given sufficient time for the large party of 49,897 Jews to organize their expedition and to make their long four-month journey from Babylon to Jerusalem to get there by September 29-30, 537 B.C., the first of the seventh Jewish month, to build their altar to Jehovah as recorded at Ezra 3:1-3. Inasmuch as September 29-30, 537 B.C., officially ends the seventy years of desolation as recorded at 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21, so the beginning of the desolation of the land must have officially begun to be counted after September 21-22, 607 B.C., the first of the seventh Jewish month in 607 B.C., which is the beginning point for the counting of the 2,520 years."
      http://onlytruegod.org/jwstrs/537vs539.htm

      Restoration Of Israel and Jerusalem In Prophecy (Doing The Math) - Chuck Missler - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/w/8598581

      Delete
    7. The Ontological Argument is fatally flawed. Essentially it tries to define something into existence, which is an absurdity.

      I could describe the enormous bag of money sitting next to me as the greatest bag of money that could ever be conceived. And clearly a bag of money which exists is greater than a bag of money that does not. Therefore, there exists a huge bag of money right next to me...

      Yet (sadly) there is no such thing. Definitions need to reflect reality - they do not create reality. You cannot use a definition of something as evidence that it exists. You have to establish its existence first. Only then can you define it according to its properties.

      By defining God as 'the greatest being possible', the Ontological Argument smuggles in the assumption that God exists - which is what the argument is trying to prove. This is circular logic.

      Consider this counter-argument:

      1) In some possible world, no Maximally Great Being exists.
      2) Therefore, there is no Maximally Great Being that exists in every possible world.
      3) Therefore, God does not exist.

      The logic here is identical to the one used by Plantinga. This exact same argument can thus be used to prove both that God does exist, and that he does not. Evidently the argument is flawed.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. But IF a maximally great being exists then He exists in every possible world. i.e. Therefore there is no possible world in which God does not exist if He exist. You must prove that God is logically incoherent like a married bachelor or a square circle to prove he does not exist using the ontological argument. But that is not what you have done. You have merely assumed, on pain of irrationality, (as if that ever concerned atheists before) that it is not even conceivable for God to exist.

      footnote, God is simply not logically incoherent as is required for atheist to prove in the ontological argument!

      Quantum Evidence for a Theistic Big Bang
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agaJIWjPWHs5vtMx5SkpaMPbantoP471k0lNBUXg0Xo/edit

      The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole.
      Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978

      “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis”
      Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation
      http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?option=com_custom_content&task=view&id=3594

      “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”
      George Smoot – Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE

      “,,,the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world,,, the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same.”
      Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – Pg.15 ‘God and the Astronomers’

      ,,, 'And if you're curious about how Genesis 1, in particular, fairs. Hey, we look at the Days in Genesis as being long time periods, which is what they must be if you read the Bible consistently, and the Bible scores 4 for 4 in Initial Conditions and 10 for 10 on the Creation Events'
      Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere

      "The Big Bang represents an immensely powerful, yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space and time. All this is accomplished within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws. The power and care this explosion reveals exceeds human mental capacity by multiple orders of magnitude."
      Prof. Henry F. Schaefer

      ,,,Whereas, even though God is VERY logically coherent, the multiverse is logically incoherent for atheists to use (In fact the multiverse makes scientific rationality impossible!):

      The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory & The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video
      http://vimeo.com/34468027

      Here is the last power-point slide of the preceding video:

      The End Of Materialism?
      * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all.
      * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle.
      * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose.
      * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.

      Delete
    10. Off Topic: I found this following interview very interesting. It is with a neurosurgeon from Harvard who was a 'card carrying materialist', yet he had a very profound NDE in which he had a complete change of mind about how the world is actually structured. He is very articulate and I think he gets the point across very well:

      A Conversation with Eben Alexander III, M.D. - Near Death Experiencer -
      Eben Alexander III, M.D., Steve Paulson (Interviewer) - video
      http://www.btci.org/bioethics/2012/videos2012/vid3.html

      Delete
    11. Born -

      But IF a maximally great being exists then He exists in every possible world.

      But that doesn't give us any reason at all to suppose that a 'maximally great being' actually DOES exist, does it?

      You are still trying to define God into existence. It won't wash. You need to establish God's existence first, not just assume it as the Ontological Argument does.

      You must prove that God is logically incoherent like a married bachelor or a square circle to prove he does not exist using the ontological argument.

      No I don't. All I need to do it show that your argument is flawed. Which I have. I can use it to prove both that God exists and that He does not. Therefore the logic is demonstrably faulty.

      You have merely assumed, on pain of irrationality, (as if that ever concerned atheists before) that it is not even conceivable for God to exist.

      No I haven't. That isn't even close to anything I have said at all. I've just pointed out that the Ontological Argument is circular, and that it can be used to justify two opposite conclusions. I have demonstrated that your argument is faulty. Which is all I need to do.

      Delete
    12. HMM and Ritchie, do you really think you are the first to use that objection?

      Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=iv&src_vid=RQPRqHZRP68&v=ixqsZP7QP_o&annotation_id=annotation_936326

      I know you probably will not watch the video, but it is there for you anyway.

      Delete
    13. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    14. Yes I will watch the video. Because it is short and the only one you have posted.

      See? People are much more likely to actually follow your links if you just post the odd one here and there as and when relevant - not a foot-long shopping list of links to hour-long videos whose relavence is questionable at best.

      As to the video itself:

      I take umbridge right away with the assertion at 00.45 that Premise 1 is the only premise that needs defending, 'since all the others logically follow'. That is completely false.

      In fact, Premise 1 is the only one I am happy to freely agree to. I DO accept it is possible that a maximally perfect being exists. But so what? Agreeing that something COULD POSSIBLY exist is not the same as saying that it DOES exist.

      Out of the actual arguments the video 'refutes', the only one which comes close to one that I have made is number 5, the 'Reverse Ontological Argument'. And here the poster's logic is demonstrably flawed.

      First, he insists that one has to show that an MGB is logically impossible before we finish premise 2. But this is not true. I don't actually have to show any such thing. As I said, I am happy to grant that the existence of an MGB is possible. Identically, such a being's non-existence is also possible. So why would I have to establish as a fact an MGB's impossibility before I conceive of the possibility that there exists a world without an MGB? The assertion makes no sense at all.

      I accept that God IS possible. And The Ontological Argument still does not carry any water. It is circular, and can be used to assert to completely contradictory conclusions. It is demonstrably flawed.

      Delete
    15. Ritchie, A very similar version of your argument was used by Richard Dawkins in the past (he devoted 6 pages to it in a book). Dr. Craig shows, with his usual clarity, why the argument you are using actually reinforces the validity of the ontological argument.

      Ontological Argument For God From The Many Worlds Hypothesis - William Lane Craig - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4784641

      please note the comment at the 2:40 mark; "there is no possible world where a non-existent being exist!!"

      i.e. Your argument is based on a 'square circle/married bachelor' type of logical incoherency! And that is the reason your argument (and Dawkins' argument) fails!

      Delete
    16. My argument is not the same as Dawkins'. Dawkins is asserting (by means of parody), that a being which created everything while simultaneously not existing would be greater than a being that did so while existing. Craig asserts that such a being is logically impossible, and I agree with him.

      MY (second) argument was that it is possible that a world exists which is not the dwelling place of a maximally great being. That being the case, following the Ontological Argument's own logic, a being that exists over all possible worlds does not exist.

      Moreover, Craig makes the same mistake as your other video and asserts that Premise 1 is the only one that needs defending and that all other premises logically follow. This is incorrect. And thus he falls foul of my first argument too (that his argument is circular).

      Let us take Premise 2, for example. If it is possible that an MGB exists, then it exists in some possible world. What is the reasoning here? Everything that is possible to exist DOES exist in some possible world? How can we support this? What is the basis for this assertion?

      If we are to accept that everything that CAN exist therefore does, somewhere, then this leads us to all sorts of absurdities. Consider it is possible that somewhere there exists a maximally evil being who destroys every world it inhabits. That is our Premise 1. Following Plantinga's logic, we arrive at the conclusion that such a being therefore does exist in this world, and we have just 'proved' that this world has been destroyed.

      Then there is the circularity. I could accept that an MGB's existence is possible. I could also, for argument's sake, agree that one that existed in actuality would be greater than one that does not. But you cannot infer that therefore one MUST exist in reality - which is essentially what the Ontological Argument is trying to do. This assumption of God's existence seems to be smuggled, if I had to pinpoint it, into premise 3.

      Your argument is based on a 'square circle/married bachelor' type of logical incoherency

      No it is not! I wish you would stop and actually read what I am saying! You keep telling me that I am trying to assert that God is logically impossible, but that is not my objection at all. Are you paying the slightest bit of attention, or can you just not counter my ACTUAL objections?

      It is extremely telling that everyone you have presented defending this argument only tries to defend Premise 1 and insists that the rest logically follows. In actual fact this is merely a dodge. Insisting that it is only Premise 1 that needs defending is absurd, and insisting that it is the only premise that all objectors object to is flat wrong. Do you have anyone who is actually willing to defend premises 2 and 3?

      Delete
    17. Ritchie most philosophers agree that steps 2-7 are valid modal logic. I agree with them and you disagree with them. Go figure, I guess, since I don't have years of training in philosophy to flesh out the point but can see the validity of their reasoning, for once I will be forced to appeal to the 'consensus' of leading philosophers :) as Darwinists continually appeal to 'consensus' with me. As well, I certainly don't agree with your thinking that you have made a logically coherent argument, for there simply is no possible world where a non-existent maximally great being can ever exist, Which is, whether you admit it or not, exactly the argument you are trying to make. Moreover it reinforces the point of the argument,,,, Well I'm fairly certain that you will disagree, but that's it for me on this argument and so the last parting shot is all yours.

      Delete
    18. most philosophers agree that steps 2-7 are valid modal logic.

      That is a bald assertion - and one you are taking entirely on faith. You believe it entirely because Craig says so. If Craig was lying or simply mistaken, you would never know.

      I guess, since I don't have years of training in philosophy to flesh out the point but can see the validity of their reasoning, for once I will be forced to appeal to the 'consensus' of leading philosophers

      If you could see the validity in their reasoning, then you would be able to relay that reasoning to me. The fact that you cannot, and need to appeal to consensus opinion in the first place tells me that you don't understand the 'validity in their reasoning' at all.

      ...there simply is no possible world where a non-existent maximally great being can ever exist, Which is, whether you admit it or not, exactly the argument you are trying to make.

      No, it demonstrably is not that argument I am trying to make. I am shocked at the staggering arrogance that you are telling me what my own argument is. My argument is nothing like the argument that you are insisting I am making. Can't you read my posts, or are you incapable of understanding what they are saying?

      Well I'm fairly certain that you will disagree, but that's it for me on this argument and so the last parting shot is all yours.

      So basically you've just been strutting and crowing while jousting a strawman, and won't even attempt to address my actual, entirely valid objections? How surprising.

      Delete
    19. Well, since I have one more minute to spare. I will point out another flaw of your argument:

      You state:

      'If it is possible that an MGB exists, then it exists in some possible world. What is the reasoning here? Everything that is possible to exist DOES exist in some possible world?'

      Now this is very strange for a atheist to point this out for Theists have been pointing out the very same thing with the multiverse conjecture of atheists, used to 'explain away' fine-tuning, for years. It is simply hypocritical for a atheist to suddenly find the argument from 'infinite possibility' incoherent when they have have been trying to use the very same argument themselves for years.,, Like I pointed out earlier, the multiverse conjecture of atheists, of the 'infinitely possible', clearly concedes the necessary premise to the ontological argument. ,,, Must go to work now, The last shot is all yours.

      Delete
    20. Since when is tu quoque a valid form of argument?

      Delete
    21. Born -

      Theists have been pointing out the very same thing with the multiverse conjecture of atheists, used to 'explain away' fine-tuning, for years.

      The multi-universe theory does not state everything that is possible to exist must exist somewhere. All it says is there could be lots of separate universes. That's all. There is no implication that anything that can possibly exist must exist in any one of them.

      Delete
    22. bornagain77 July 8, 2012 3:20 PM

      Ian you state:

      "That is special pleading: God is good and incapable of evil or behaving immorally because we say so and that makes Him a special case."

      No it actually logically follows from the necessary characteristics of a 'maximally great Being':


      Oh no it doesn't.

      Ontological Argument For God From The Many Worlds Hypothesis - William Lane Craig - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4784641


      What is puzzling is why Craig is allowed to get away with this sort of nonsense.

      1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.

      a) A lot of things are possible but the fact that soemthing is possible does not mean it is necessarily actual

      b) What does "maximally great" mean: biggest, fastest, strongest, smartest, all of the above and more? The phrase is undefined or so vaguely defined as to be almost meaningless

      c) Not so fast there, sunshine, who says this "maximally great" being and God are the same thing? Trying to sneak in a hidden assumption there?

      2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

      a) Still only possible, which does not mean actual.

      b) What is the ontological status of a possible being in a possible world? In what sense can it be said to exist?

      3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

      a) If there is a population of universes then it is possible that in each there is a "maximally great" being.

      b) There is no reason to think that all these "maximally great" beings are one and the same being.

      c) There is no reason to think that all or any of these possible "maximally great beings are the Christian God.

      4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

      a) Yes, it is trivially true that it is possible that in each of all possible worlds there is a "maximally great" being - and that includes our world.

      b) Still no reason to think "maximally great" being and the Christian God are the same thing.

      5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.

      a) No, it's possible but until you define "maximally great" that's all we can say.

      6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

      a) You're repeating yourself. See 5. a)

      7. Therefore, God exists.

      a) No, non sequitur.

      b) As before, you have given no reason why the "maximally great" beings in all possible universes are all the same being. They might all be different.

      c) You have given no reason to think that each or any of these "maximally great" beings are the Christian God.

      Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2–7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial.

      It would. I'm pretty sure there are others besides me out there who would be happy to give Craig an argument about them.

      Most philosophers would agree that if God’s existence is even possible, then he must exist.

      You have any numbers to back up this claim?

      The atheist has to maintain that it’s impossible that God exists.

      No, the atheist just has to say that he or she doesn't think God exists because there is no good reason to.

      He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square.

      That would depend on what definition of a god was on the table. But even a coherent concept of a god does not mean it must exist.

      Delete
  3. It's strange, isn't it, that simple-minded muddle-headedness among the individuals who vaunt themselves as the very paragons of Reason, in a world benighted by religion and metaphysics?

    "I don't believe in God, because I don't like him. He's cruel and nasty."

    "Evolution is so astronomically unlikely that it far exceeds what scientists ordinarily take as impossible.

    That doesn’t mean we can know that evolution is impossible. But we do know that the claim that evolution is a fact is not scientific."

    "I was under the impression that abiogenesis had been mathematically proved to be absolutely impossible, within anything like the time-scale attributed to our universe from the time of the Big Bang."

    You conclude, Cornelius:

    "Avise’s sentiment in the above passage is typical. Evolution is underwritten by religious mandates. Evolution is a fact, yes, but that fact is metaphysical. Evolutionists provide a great many proofs of their fact, but the proofs always entail theological premises."


    Oddly enough, Avise, effectively, makes no bones about the veracity of your contention in his very first sentence you quote above - baldly identifying Evolution as a religion:

    "Evolution by natural causes emancipates religion from the shackles of theodicy."

    I believe there's a kind of anecdotal catch-phrase you Americans have, that goes something like, "Something ain't right about that boy...", as expressed by a deeply concerned daddy or old gramps. I feel that way towards Mr Avise, having read this article.

    On one level, evolutionists suffer the immense torments of compassion for the sufferings of all creatures (sorry about the derivation, evolutionsts); while, on another level, at the same time dimissing such torments as a product, a relic, of vain religious fantasy. All this, after vaunting evolution as a religion.

    Something ain't right about that boy fer sure...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry about the quotation marks around this paragraph of mine:

    "I was under the impression that abiogenesis had been mathematically proved to be absolutely impossible, within anything like the time-scale attributed to our universe from the time of the Big Bang."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul July 8, 2012 3:48 AM

      [...]

      "I was under the impression that abiogenesis had been mathematically proved to be absolutely impossible, within anything like the time-scale attributed to our universe from the time of the Big Bang."

      No, there have been attempts to show that the emergence of life through naturalistic means is so highly improbable as to be effectively impossible. The problem is we simply don't yet know enough about everything that might be involved in abiogenesis to have much confidence in those numbers.

      As a simple example, suppose we take the case of a weekly public lottery. We are told the the probability of winning in any given week is one in twenty million. To be able to arrive at that probability we need to know certain things in advance, such as how many tickets are issued in a week and how many winners are allowed. To say the probability is one in twenty million assumes the purchase of one ticket and the knowledge in advance that only twenty million tickets were issued and, of those, only one can win. If we didn't know how many tickets were issued or how many winners were allowed it would be much more difficult to calculate the probability of winning.

      In the case of abiogenesis, there are still so many things we don't yet know. We can make guesstimates about the missing bits and come up with some sort of a result but how much confidence can we have in it?

      The simple answer about abiogenesis is that nobody knows yet and in science there's nothing wrong with admitting that. What is misleading - to put it mildly - is to claim to have disproven it when you have done nothing of the sort.

      Delete
  5. I'm thinking out loud here folks.

    How is evil in our world proof that a Creator God can't exist and that Evolution must be true?

    How can we hold any being responsible for war, murder etc when we alone are the cause?

    Our GM foods, vaccinations, pharmaceutical companies recycling systems, nuclear and other power solutions, steroids, growth hormone pumped into the cattle, pesticides etc all contribute to the various cancers and other physical, emotional and psychological conditions present in our species today - these are conditions we have created, not God.

    I heard someone the other day cursing God for the fact he had just found out he was HIV+. He admitted he was a sexually promiscuous man who rarely wore condoms. How is this Gods fault? Clearly this mans sexual behaviour or lack of education regarding the risks are at fault here?

    As I said, I'm merely thinking out loud. I do not find this argument particularly convincing. If anything it looks to me like certain individuals try shift the blame from ourselves to a Creator God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JK -

      How is evil in our world proof that a Creator God can't exist...

      It isn't. This is actually a strawman version of the Problem of Evil.

      The actually line of reasoning runs thus: How can we reconcile evil and suffering in the world with a god who is 1) omnipotent, 2) omniscient and crucially, 3) a good God who cares for us?

      This is not an argument (much less 'proof') against merely a creator God of any sort, since obviously that creator God could be oblivious to our suffering, powerless to stop it, or he might be entirely indifferent to (or even actively enjoy) our suffering.

      ...and that Evolution must be true?

      Clearly it isn't. The first misconception is a common strawman for religious apologists, but this one is specific to Cornelius. He is wedded to his idea (at least, it is his as far as I can tell) that biologists (or 'evolutionists' as he calls them) present the false dichotomy of 'design or evolution', and then since they don't believe in God (all biologists are atheists, don'tcha know...) they accept evolution by default.

      The errors here are big and profound, and I hope, obvious.

      How is this Gods fault? Clearly this mans sexual behaviour or lack of education regarding the risks are at fault here?

      Perhaps. But the Problem of Evil more relevantly relates to suffering which we did not bring on ourselves. No-one causes earthquakes, droughts, forest fires, tidal waves, plagues, volcanic eruptions, diseases, and famines. I mean, yes we might contribute to them or do something to increase the risk of them from time to time, but these are all naturally occuring phenomena. They will happen no matter what we do, and they take a truly massive toll in human suffering. Was it beyond (the omnipotent) God's powers to create a planet with a solid crust rather than tectonic plates so that we would not experience earthquakes, or did he just not care about those who would die in terror during them? Did he not know that an erratic, rather than regular, weather system would result thousands starving in times of unforseen drought and bad weather, or did he just enjoy watching them suffer?

      But as I said, this is just an argument against a good, loving God, not merely a creator God. And it certainly has nothing at all to do with evolution. And it is Cornelius mixing them up.

      Delete
    2. Jason Kay

      I'm thinking out loud here folks.

      How is evil in our world proof that a Creator God can't exist and that Evolution must be true?


      It's not. That's a particularly silly strawman argument put forth by the Creationist here and has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution.

      In case you haven't noticed this is not a science blog. It's a Christian apologetics blog pretending to be a science blog. Its purpose to offer "sciency" sounding arguments against evolution to the True Believers. Most of the arguments are so bad as to be laughable.

      Most science supporters wouldn't care, except for the continued dishonest portrayal of professional scientists as all either hopeless incompetents or deliberate frauds. Some of us take baseless insults like that personally so we fight back, and attempt to correct the deliberate misrepresentation of science and scientists continually given here.

      Oh, and welcome to the asylum BTW. :)

      Delete
  6. Actually, I feel quite reproachful towards God for having allowed two millennia of the Christian ethos to blind so many atheist polemicists to the idea that a god does not have to be good. Even as they denounce him as nasty and cruel.

    It seems they cannot but look at Christianity through a Christian filter, however distorted by their stumbling, inchoate, materialist world-view.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul -

      a god does not have to be good

      Absolutely correct. It does not.

      However it is Cornelius, not anyone else, who is trying to marry the Problem of Evil with ToE. He states people accept the latter simply because of the former. And on that he is absolutely, laughably wrong. People accept ToE because of the vast amount of scientific evidence supporting it. Not because of any theological argument.

      Delete
  7. Cornleius -

    This is the reason why evolution is a fact. No Creator God would have intended for this world.

    No, it isn't. This is John Avise musing on the philosophical implications of evolution. It is quite categorically not the scientific basis of evolution.

    I don't know how I can put it plainer. You are simply absolutely wrong on this point. And it is one of the cornerstone errors in your entire view of biology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ritchie, this is not a bug, it's a feature. Hunter deliberately misrepresents Avise's argument. There can be no doubt about that.

      Delete
    2. There is no scientific basis for evolution. This is the reason that prominent evolutionists continually bring up the strawman of the omnipotent and benevolent God. It's a tradition started by Darwin himself.

      Furthermore to the problem of evil posed by Avise and others, it is enlightening to me as a Christian, to realize that Judeo-Christian doctrine teaches that Satan is the god of this world and that, when God returns to the earth, the lion will eat grass and lie with the lamb. So maybe the world was vastly different and friendlier at one time in the distant past.

      Finally, science is finding strong evidence that the mind has a lot more to do with the body's health than materialists have led us to believe. In this vein, it is tempting to speculate that the collective mind of humanity has the power to attract disasters usually attributed to God. This is somewhat reminiscent of the 1956 sci-fi classic "Forbidden Planet" in which a destructive monster turned out to be an extension of a scientist's own mind. Maybe the world is hostile and dangerous because this is the world that we deserve.

      Delete
    3. LS -

      There is no scientific basis for evolution.

      Yes there is. An extremely solid one.

      This is the reason that prominent evolutionists continually bring up the strawman of the omnipotent and benevolent God.

      'Prominent evolutionists' do not continually bring up God. People of any faith - or of no faith at all, can accept ToE, just as they can accept any scientific theory. It is Cornelius and the other bonkers ID/Creationists who bring up God. Because what they are peddling is essentially religious doctrine.

      Furthermore to the problem of evil posed by Avise and others, it is enlightening to me as a Christian, to realize that Judeo-Christian doctrine teaches that Satan is the god of this world and that, when God returns to the earth, the lion will eat grass and lie with the lamb.

      Then the lion will require extensive modifications to its bodyplan. So many, in fact, that I imagine it would be totally unrecognisable as a lion...

      So maybe the world was vastly different and friendlier at one time in the distant past.

      Ignoring (for the moment) the obvious point that this is religious myth, not fact: what changed? What exactly caused the docile, herbivorous lion to become a territorial carnivore?

      In this vein, it is tempting to speculate that the collective mind of humanity has the power to attract disasters usually attributed to God.

      You think earthquakes, tidal waves and droughts are caused by humanity's collective telepathic powers...? Seriously, what on Earth are you talking about?

      Maybe the world is hostile and dangerous because this is the world that we deserve.

      But suffering is not inflicted on those who deserve it the most. No natural calamity specifically targets bad people. So if suffering is punishment for misdeeds, why is it dished out so randomly and indiscriminately?

      Furthermore, it logically follows from the 'suffering is punishment for sins' logic that charity is bad. Why should we help the sick and afflicted when they are being punished for being wicked? Why should we ease the suffering of others if that suffering is actually divinely-wrought justice? Do you really hold to this?

      Delete
    4. Ritchie

      Louis: " when God returns to the earth, the lion will eat grass and lie with the lamb."

      Then the lion will require extensive modifications to its bodyplan. So many, in fact, that I imagine it would be totally unrecognisable as a lion...


      I wonder if Louis knows that all cats (including sweet little domestic moggies) are obligate carnivores? Their bodies require a protein found in meat - taurine - that they can't produce naturally? Without a steady external supply of taurine (from fresh meat or taurine supplemented food) they sicken and die.

      I'm sure we'll now get the usual "that was caused by THE FALL!". Wait for it.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. I'm sure we'll now get the usual "that was caused by THE FALL!". Wait for it.

      I suspect you are right. In which case I'll be asking exactly why the lions - or any other creature for that matter - should bear the consequences of 'sins' committed by two humans beings. I mean, what did the poor lions ever do wrong?

      Delete
    7. Me:

      There is no scientific basis for evolution.

      Ritchie:

      Yes there is. An extremely solid one.

      Oh, the evidnce for evolution is indeed solid but not the evolution you have in mind. I mean, not the evolution according to which some cow-like animals evolved into a whales all by themselves. There is no evidence for that.

      Me:

      This is the reason that prominent evolutionists continually bring up the strawman of the omnipotent and benevolent God.

      Ritchie:

      'Prominent evolutionists' do not continually bring up God. People of any faith - or of no faith at all, can accept ToE, just as they can accept any scientific theory.

      Your faith maybe but not mine. Don't try to shove your religion down my throat por favor.

      It is Cornelius and the other bonkers ID/Creationists who bring up God. Because what they are peddling is essentially religious doctrine.

      Hunter always quotes famous evolutionists including Darwin when he makes a point about the religious basis of evolution.

      Me:

      Furthermore to the problem of evil posed by Avise and others, it is enlightening to me as a Christian, to realize that Judeo-Christian doctrine teaches that Satan is the god of this world and that, when God returns to the earth, the lion will eat grass and lie with the lamb.

      Ritchie:

      Then the lion will require extensive modifications to its bodyplan. So many, in fact, that I imagine it would be totally unrecognisable as a lion...

      I doubt it but so what?

      Me:

      So maybe the world was vastly different and friendlier at one time in the distant past.

      Ritchie:

      Ignoring (for the moment) the obvious point that this is religious myth, not fact: what changed? What exactly caused the docile, herbivorous lion to become a territorial carnivore?

      According to certain scriptures, there were other advanced creatures involved in the creation of life on Earth and many left their mark on ancient civilizations.

      Me:

      In this vein, it is tempting to speculate that the collective mind of humanity has the power to attract disasters usually attributed to God.

      Ritchie:

      You think earthquakes, tidal waves and droughts are caused by humanity's collective telepathic powers...? Seriously, what on Earth are you talking about?

      The power is really indirect. I believe in the existence of both a physical realm and a spiritual realm. The two are complementary. I also believe that there are unbreakable laws in both realms. One of them is karma, the spiritual equivalent of conservation laws in physics.

      Me:

      Maybe the world is hostile and dangerous because this is the world that we deserve.

      Ritchie:

      But suffering is not inflicted on those who deserve it the most. No natural calamity specifically targets bad people. So if suffering is punishment for misdeeds, why is it dished out so randomly and indiscriminately?

      Our spirits do not change during a lifetime. Hitler had the same spirit when he was born that he had when he died. Suffering is a purely spiritual thing. It has no meaning in the physical realm.

      Furthermore, it logically follows from the 'suffering is punishment for sins' logic that charity is bad. Why should we help the sick and afflicted when they are being punished for being wicked? Why should we ease the suffering of others if that suffering is actually divinely-wrought justice? Do you really hold to this?

      No. Justice is not wrought by God or anybody in particular. Karma is unity. Nobody, not even God, can violate karma. In order for us humans to be saved from karmic law, someone else must pay the price. This is the basis of my faith. Take it or leave it.

      Delete
    8. Thorn:

      I'm sure we'll now get the usual "that was caused by THE FALL!". Wait for it.

      Ritchie:

      I suspect you are right.

      No, he is not. Thornton is a troll who thinks that fundamentalist Christianity is the source of all evil. His/her entire reason for living is to show them how much he/she hates them. I don't think they care. I certainly don't believe that bad things happen because of the fall of men. There was evil in the universe long before humans appeared.

      Ritchie:

      In which case I'll be asking exactly why the lions - or any other creature for that matter - should bear the consequences of 'sins' committed by two humans beings. I mean, what did the poor lions ever do wrong?

      We can design and build robots from metal, plastic and silicon. We can even program into our robots such things as aversions and affinities that make them behave as if they consciously feel pain or enjoy certain pleasures; they don't. So can the advanced intelligent creatures who designed life on earth.

      My personal view is that animals are not conscious. They're just meat robots. Anthropomorphizing animals is just engaging in superstition with no scientific basis. You are free to disagree, of course.

      Delete
    9. LS -

      not the evolution according to which some cow-like animals evolved into a whales all by themselves. There is no evidence for that.

      Yes there is:

      http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

      Your faith maybe but not mine.

      If you faith cannot stand alongside acceptance of a scientific theory then allow me to suggest it is your faith that is in error, not the theory.

      Don't try to shove your religion down my throat por favor.

      Excellent advice all round, that. Though I'm bemused as to why you are addressing it to me.

      Hunter always quotes famous evolutionists including Darwin when he makes a point about the religious basis of evolution.

      Hunter's entire perception of biology is coloured by his religion beliefs. He thinks biology should allow for miracles, and that it is religious bias which prevents 'evolutionists' from doing so. In actual fact it is perfectly standard scientific practice which prevents them from doing it, and HIS religious bias which makes him think biology should.

      I doubt it but so what?

      Lions have the bodies of carnivors. Their teeth, their claws, their degestive tract - everything about them is suited to hunting. Not grazing. As Thornton points out, they simply could not survive without meat. Thus, the idea of a herbivorous lion is as nonsensical as a dolphin which flies and nests in trees. Would it really still be a dolphin?

      According to certain scriptures, there were other advanced creatures involved in the creation of life on Earth and many left their mark on ancient civilizations.

      And you're suggesting these 'advanced creatures' suddenly made the Earth a dangerous place? They broke the Earth's solid mantle into tectonic plates, allowing for earthquakes and volcanoes? They turned Earth's regular weather system erratic? They introduced horrific diseases when once there were none? Why exactly would they do that, let alone how?

      I believe in the existence of both a physical realm and a spiritual realm. The two are complementary. I also believe that there are unbreakable laws in both realms. One of them is karma, the spiritual equivalent of conservation laws in physics.

      And what is your basis for belief here? What is your evidence that these exist?

      Our spirits do not change during a lifetime. Hitler had the same spirit when he was born that he had when he died.

      And yet there are children starving and dying of horrific diseases every day who are suffering far more than Hitler ever did. You think all those children really deserve their grisly fate?

      Suffering is a purely spiritual thing. It has no meaning in the physical realm.

      Rubbish. It's not a 'spiritual thing' if you contract a debilitating disease or are involved in a terrifying, agonising accident. It is very much a physical thing.

      Justice is not wrought by God or anybody in particular.

      Oh, so there is no great arbiter of justice? Right, well we agree on that at least.

      In order for us humans to be saved from karmic law, someone else must pay the price.

      How can someone else pay the price? It is a cornerstone of our justice systems that the guilty and only the guilty are punished for there misdeeds. No legal system in the world allows innocent parties to bare punishment in the place of the guilty. How is karmic justice just if it allows such a thing?

      Moreover you haven't really answered my objections. Why is it that suffering is distributed so randomly and arbitrarily (indeed all too often it seems the wicked propser the most and suffer the least)? And even if suffering was karmic justice, wouldn't charity still be bad? I mean, those starving kids in Africa do DESERVE it, after all...

      Delete
    10. LS -

      No, he is not.

      Well colour me corrected.

      My personal view is that animals are not conscious. They're just meat robots. Anthropomorphizing animals is just engaging in superstition with no scientific basis.

      So you see absolutely nothing wrong with animal cruelty? I could come home every night, beat my dog to a bloody pulp and torture kittens to death in the cruelest ways I could imagine, and you would be fine with all of this? It would be as morally consequetial as physically assaulting my toaster?

      While I might agree that we cannot prove that animals have a consciousness (as opposed to being 'meat robots' who merely act like they do), consider that the same thing is true of other human beings too. The only being, human or animal, I know for a fact that feels pain is myself. All other humans could be 'meat robots' programmed to react as if they felt pain while in actual fact feeling nothing.

      Your logic, extended only slightly to encompass humans too, is the logic of a psychopath. I do not say that to be insulting, I say it as an objective fact.

      If we are to allow that, on balance, humans probably aren't just 'meat robots', then on what grounds do we exclude animals? They certainly act like they have feelings. They certainly act as though they feel fear, joy, anger, frustration, pain, etc. Why would we doubt this to be true?

      Delete
    11. I wrote:

      Oh, the evidnce for evolution is indeed solid but not the evolution you have in mind. I mean, not the evolution according to which some cow-like animals evolved into a whales all by themselves. There is no evidence for that.

      Ritchie searched deep and coughed up:

      Yes there is:

      http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/


      A link that points to evidence of transitional fossils is not evidence that the species evolved on their own via random mutations and natural selection. It is only evidence that there was evolution. The actual mechanism of evolution is not evident in the fossils. Wishful thinking is not science. It's superstition.

      Since you insist on being dishonest in your replies, I've decided to end this discussion. You know, pearls, swines and all that. Besides, unlike some of the professional prevaricators on this forum, I have a life to attend to.

      Delete
    12. LS -

      A link that points to evidence of transitional fossils is not evidence that the species evolved on their own via random mutations and natural selection. It is only evidence that there was evolution. The actual mechanism of evolution is not evident in the fossils

      I posted that link in response to your assertion that there was no evidence that 'cow-like animals' evolved into whales. The link quite clearly shows that there is such evidence.

      Now you say you accept that such a transition occurred but that you simply question HOW it happened? You doubt Natural Selection - the driving force of evolution?

      Well luckily for you there is evidence for that too:

      http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

      No wishful thinking needed. Just solid evidence.

      Since you insist on being dishonest in your replies...

      And when have I been dishonest? You might not agree with me but at least allow that I mean my replies sincerely.

      I've decided to end this discussion. You know, pearls, swines and all that.

      Oh right, I'm too far beneath you for you to grace me with your insights. You're far too enlightened to have to address my scummy, filth-encrusted, empirical evidence. How convenient for you.

      I trust the weather's nice up your own backside?

      Delete
  8. Hunter: This is the reason why evolution is a fact. No Creator God would have intended for this world. From a scientific perspective, the theory of evolution is a non starter.

    You know full well that Avise's book is not an argument for evolution. It is an argument from evolution. Yet you continue your misrepresentations.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Of related note; Here is a audio book by Lee Strobel which I 'serendipitously' just stumbled across, that begins, right off the bat, by addressing the argument from evil:

    Lee Strobel - The Case for Faith Audiobook Ch. 1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zDdd-PzWZc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. of related note: Here is a 76 minute video that is based on the highlights of the preceding book:

      LEE STROBEL: The Case for Faith (Special Upload) Full Documentary - Movies
      http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=FJ0J2FNU

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Cornelius,

    You're ignoring aspects from your quote of Avies. Specifically, he wrote...

    No longer need we agonize about why a Creator God is the world’s leading abortionist and mass murderer. No longer need we query a Creator God’s motives for debilitating countless innocents with horrific genetic conditions. No longer must we anguish about the interventionist motives of a supreme intelligence that permits gross evil and suffering in the world.

    Why would we anguish over these things unless the specific creator God Avies is referring to here is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good? Why would associating these things be tantamount to blasphemy unless the creator God Avies is referring to claimed to be omnibenevolent and omnibenevolence has some concrete meaning for the purpose of criticism?

    In fact, your entire post is an example of why "That just what some supernatural designer must have wanted" is that it's a bad explanation. Specifically, it's shallow any easy to vary.

    For example, if you perform any sort of detailed study of conceptions of God throughout human history a moral axis only appears much later. And it does so incrementally.

    Not to mention there could be multiple creator Gods that are equally powerful, yet have different goals. The result could be that neither got what they wanted. Or God could have a equally powerful twin brother that is perfectly evil. Or one or more creator Gods that are limited in power, knowledge or both, etc.

    None of these conceptions of God would invoke anguish given the observations Avies is referring to. So, your argument is parochial in that, out of all possibly supernatural creator beings, it assumes the monotheistic conception of God is true.

    CH: This is the reason why evolution is a fact. No Creator God would have intended for this world.

    Which is a non-sequitur, as I've just illustrated.

    Let me guess, we all know that the Christian God exists, but we reject him. As such, we all believe in a monotheistic God that is all knowing, all powerful and perfectly good? But again, out of all the supernatural possibilities, this assumes that Christianity is true and that the Bible is the inherent word of God.

    CH: From a scientific perspective, the theory of evolution is a non starter.

    Except you still haven't explained how it's possible, in practice, to extrapolate observations without putting them into an explanatory framework.

    Furthermore, If you hold a pre-enlightenment, authoritative conception of human knowledge, it would come as no surprise that you keep claiming evolution is random, despite having been corrected over and over again. Specifically, knowledge must be justified by an authoritative source. Otherwise, it's "random".

    Do you deny holding this belief? Do you deny that there are other forms of epistemology, such as critical rationalism, which your argument ignores completely?

    So, again, you've presented an non-sequitur in that your arguments are parochial in nature.

    ReplyDelete
  12. No longer need we agonize about why a Creator God is the world’s leading abortionist and mass murderer. No longer need we query a Creator God’s motives for debilitating countless innocents with horrific genetic conditions. No longer must we anguish about the interventionist motives of a supreme intelligence that permits gross evil and suffering in the world.

    Oh dear...I was supposed to be "agonizing" and "querying" about God's motives? Some Christian I am. I was very content to know the Creator can call us back home to Him at any time, and placed my trust in the fact He knows what He's doing.

    Well, I'm sure it will make those who lose a child to cancer feel better and lessen their pain knowing that "nature" did it as opposed to a loving God calling His child back home to Him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well I for one certainly find the idea that we are alone in a universe which is indifferent to our plight both morally and rationally less objectionable than the idea that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing being who is good and loving and watches over us, and yet also permits the atrocities which afflict us.

      Delete