Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Vividbleau: The Problem of Evil is More of a Problem for an Atheist than a Theist

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

VB sums his chain of reasoning below. And very nicely done reasoning it is too. And then comes this: The problem of evil is more of a problem for the atheist than for the theist. He is right of course. But can anyone tell me why his is right. EVERYTHING THAT FOLLOWS IS VB’S:

I am somewhat of an obsessive compulsive after a few months I started to ask uncomfortable questions. I know what I experienced but the mind is a funny thing and I recognized hey you are basing your life on this belief which is a serious commitment maybe I am deceiving myself “Am I sure?” and of course I was not sure I needed more.
One of my strengths, and is always the case can be one of my greatest weakness, is that I have a very open mind, its not empty but open. I also think that to confront ones doubts one must face the opposition and their strongest arguments honestly and without distortion. Its a blessing and a curse because it is very tough to engage arguments that are contrary to what you believe. This is important, I recognize that I am not objective, I am guilty of observational bias, by recognizing this I recognize that I have to fight that and the way to do that is to expose oneself to ideas opposite of your own. I remember once on this site I mentioned that I was prone to observational bias and someone was surprised by that (it was not you) and I thought “are you kidding me”? Its a human condition.

It took many years but in a nutshell here is where I have landed.

Evidence is a plastic word and needs to be defined, here is how I prioritize evidence.
1) My starting point is where all of us start, and where many are ignorant that they start there, which is a set of unprovable assumptions, everyone has them. Everyone starts with metaphysics! I assume the reliability of mind.

2) Reason and its sister Logic is superior to experience. Logic cannot tell us what is but it can tell us what is NOT.

3) Because everything starts with metaphysics faith is not unreasonable, nor is fideism the same as faith.

4) Every worldview is a set of faith assumptions about the nature of things ie is a metaphysical belief.

5) Every worldview has difficulties.

6) To echo KF we should adopt the worldview that has the least number of difficulties.

As to the materialist, atheist, agnostic I GET IT. I understand why when we look over history, the pain and suffering that exists in our world, the evil and mayhem, atheism to me is a reasonable position but entails more difficulties than theism.

Here is my answer as a theist to the problem of evil, I don’t have one nor does anyone else, Jonathan Edwards, one of the greatest minds America has produced, spent his whole life contemplating this question and could not answer it. Those who appeal to the free will of man etc, just demonstrate to me that they don’t gasp the extent of the problem, I am laying it all out here and I know this will rankle some theists here but that’s a fact. As an aside I think the problem of evil is more a problem for the atheist than the theist

Comments
EDTA “Which one wins out?” You touch on an interesting question, God cannot deny His being so anything He does must be consistent with His being. What many do not understand is the necessity of Christ’s life, death and the evidence that it was sufficient by the resurrection. There was no other way other than Christ that God could forgive man and at the same time it be consistent with His attributes. Did God change His standard that everyone must achieve? No, Christ kept the law ( Christ’s life was as important as His death )and all those who put their faith in him His work is imputed to us just as if we did it. Did God change the penalty for sin? No by Christ’s death His death has been imputed to all that believe, so if we have kept the law in Christ and have received the penalty of death in Christ we are “justified “ and it would be unjust for God to meet out the consequences of our rebellion. Did God compromise His justice, holiness or righteousness? No Romans 3:25–26 (ESV): whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Vividvividbleau
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
LarTanner @ 88, 1) "a God who is imperfect". As with good/evil, we don't have a definition of perfection. Sure, we say that God is perfectly good, perfectly just, perfectly this and that, but we say those things to exalt him, because it's the best we finite beings can do. We don't use the term "perfect" to absolutely circumscribe him in ways that we can then reason from. In particular, if he is perfect along multiple axes (justice versus mercy for instance), we don't even know what that would mean in each specific circumstance in which it would apply. Which one wins out? We have no idea, except in the big picture where he offers salvation to all if they accept Christ (mercy wins). But in special, individual cases? We have no ability to juggle two infinite and sometimes-conflicting concepts. We don't even know that those are the only two considerations in a situation. Those are just two boiled-down terms that we can sort of comprehend. So God is only imperfect if we look at just one axis--put all other attributes of his aside--and that from a human viewpoint, and then decide that God isn't really absolute in that one aspect only. But that's totally off-base. 2) "a God who is...constrained in power." I don't know that to be the case either. But if he's up to something vis a vis creation, then he may have prior commitments that involve holding back on one or more of his attributes for some purpose that we aren't fully aware of. Again, our inability to reason about the possible constraints on a (very) higher being isn't surprising. 3) "Do you believe in a God who can elect to prevent "evil"...from befalling those he favors?" Yes, I think God could prevent harm from coming to those he favors. But he could have reasons I am not aware of for allowing it for a time.EDTA
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
PS: I also note the cogency of Dembski's remarks on Boethius' long standing point:
In his Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius states the following paradox: “If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?” Boethius contrasts the problem that evil poses for theism with the problem that good poses for atheism. The problem of good does not receive nearly as much attention as the problem evil, but it is the more basic problem. That’s because evil always presupposes a good that has been subverted. All our words for evil make this plain: the New Testament word for sin (Greek hamartia) presupposes a target that’s been missed; deviation presupposes a way (Latin via) from which we’ve departed; injustice presupposes justice; etc. So let’s ask, who’s got the worse problem, the theist or the atheist? Start with the theist. God is the source of all being and purpose. Given God’s existence, what sense does it make to deny God’s goodness? None . . . . The problem of evil still confronts theists, though not as a logical or philosophical problem, but instead as a psychological and existential one [as was addressed above] . . . . The problem of good as it faces the atheist is this: nature, which is nuts-and-bolts reality for the atheist, has no values and thus can offer no grounding for good and evil. As nineteenth century freethinker Robert Green Ingersoll used to say, “In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments. There are consequences.” More recently, Richard Dawkins made the same point: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” ["Prepared Remarks for the Dembski-Hitchens Debate," Uncommon Descent Blog, Nov 22, 2010]
kairosfocus
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
LT, you have no answer to the core free will defense as it is in fact logically demonstrative. If a set of propositions (suitably clarified) is consistent in a possible world, it is just that, consistent. Such a PW has been provided, some fifty years now. The attempt to resurrect and prop up a dead argument would be amusing, if it were not sad. KFkairosfocus
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
Jerry, first, we must appreciate the difference between a defense and a theodicy. I have found that far too often, that distinction is muddled. The result is to set up and knock over a strawman. Which is unfortunately all too common. KFkairosfocus
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
LT, 88. Disagreement has little to do with the matter, a well founded worldview warranted on comparative difficulties does. So, what is your substance, why? And in particular why is it not patent to you -- from the absolute and sweeping nature of your dismissal -- that your own arguments depend for any force they have on known first duties to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, to fairness and justice, etc. And if you take it that we are not so bound, but appeal to our delusion that such obtains, what then does that point to? In all prudence, what then do you think we will find it advisable to do? KFkairosfocus
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
Jerry, I should note to 85 that quite often, the purpose of various things is fairly evident to the reasonable person. For example the eye is clearly designed for sight. KFkairosfocus
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
Bornagain77 and Truthfreedom, I really am not trying to be dismissive. I don't see what you want me to address. For example, in post 100 all I see is Bornagain77 making arguments on my behalf, then sweeping them away with assertions of self-refutation, and then a strange, quoted question about the soul. To me, you are posturing and not engaging in dialogue. This OP is about philosophical challenges posed by the "problem of evil." I've argued that the problem of evil has been, and remains, a serious problem for Abrahamic theism. I've also implied (though not out-and-out argued) that for a non-theist, there is no "problem of evil" at all. I appreciated when someone raised the free will defense, even though to me it failed to resolve the main issue and created a new one. Maybe you both feel like you are on topic or that you are exposing fatal inconsistencies in this-or-that worldview, but that's not what's coming through to me. I would rather you just advance a specific claim and explain your reasoning.LarTanner
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
@100 Bornagain77:
The predicament that Darwinists find themselves in regards to denying the reality of this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics, and yet needing validation from this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics in order for their materialistic theory to even be considered scientific in the first place, should be the very definition of a scientifically self-refuting worldview.
But naturalism and self-refutation go hand in hand, merrily strolling along the path, like the two good old buddies they are.Truthfreedom
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
@103 Bornagain77:.
LarTanner is apparently a big fan of the fallacious “Argument By Dismissal”.
I always love when people think they are being innovative, that some certain tricks are going to help them to win an argument. Nihil novum sub sole, kids.Truthfreedom
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
Bornagain77 @103: Honest about what, exactly?LarTanner
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
LarTanner is apparently a big fan of the fallacious "Argument By Dismissal"
A List Of Fallacious Arguments - "Argument By Dismissal" http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#dismissal
Too sad. I was hoping that LT would at least try to be honest in this discussion.bornagain77
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
Truthfreedom @99: "But you can not pretend I am going to use your subjective yardstick to construct my interpretation of reality. Why should I?" You are not being asked at all to use my "subjective yardstick" to construct your interpretation of reality. Why do you think I am asking you to? Bornagain77 @100: Very little meat for so many words. "Is anything worth more than your soul?" This question is fantastical. Barry Arrington @101: So what?LarTanner
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
LT "the subjective is so wonderfully individual and human." Say what you want about Eichmann's subjective preference for mass slaughter, it was wonderfully individual and human. At least it had that going for it.Barry Arrington
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
at 91 Truthfreedom asks LarTanner
TF: Could you provide an example of ‘perfection’?
At 94 LarTanner's very first example of perfection is "an equilateral triangle,"
LT: Examples of perfection: an equilateral triangle,,,,
TF asks,
When have you seen a perfect equilateral triangle?
To which LT responds,
In my imagination, I see perfect equilateral triangles
So LT apparently agrees with Dr. Egnor that perfect triangles do not exist in physical/material reality? As Dr. Michael Egnor notes, “Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,,”
Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”?,,, What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,, Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame. The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/
I imagine that LT will argue, as he has done with morality, that mathematics is purely an invention of man's imagination and that it has no objective existence apart from any material representation that man may construct. And yet herein is the irresolvable dilemma that mathematics presents to Darwinian materialists such as LT, Although Darwinian materialists deny that anything beyond the material realm objectively exists, Darwinian materialists need this immaterial “Platonic realm” of mathematics in order for their theory to even be considered scientific in the first place. But exactly why should something that is supposedly merely a product of man's imagination, i.e. mathematics, hold authority over the material realm so as tell us which theories are scientific or not? This simply makes no sense under the premises of Darwinian materialism. As M. Anthony Mills explains, “And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract (mathematical) objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities.”
What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018 Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories. As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents. In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html
Simply put, Mathematics itself, contrary to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, does not need the physical world in order to exist. And yet Darwinian materialists, although they deny that anything beyond the material realm exists, need this immaterial “Platonic realm” of mathematics in order for their theory to even be considered scientific in the first place.
Platonic mathematical world – image http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/platonic_physical.gif
The predicament that Darwinists find themselves in regards to denying the reality of this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics, and yet needing validation from this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics in order for their materialistic theory to even be considered scientific in the first place, should be the very definition of a scientifically self-refuting worldview. Moreover, as should be obvious by now, the fact that man himself has access to, and can use, this transcendent, beyond space and time, immaterial world of mathematics to his great advantage for his 'real world' endeavors of science, technology, and engineering, offers fairly compelling evidence that man cannot possibly be a purely material being but that man must also possess a transcendent, beyond space and time, immaterial mind and/or soul.
Dr. Ed Feser – The Immateriality of the Intellect – video Excerpt: 1: Formal thought processes can have an exact or unambiguous conceptual content. However, 2: Nothing material can have an exact or unambiguous conceptual content. So, 3: Formal thought processes are not material. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNi0j19ZSpo
As Charles Darwin’s contemporary, Alfred Russel Wallace himself stated, “Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.”
“Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.” Alfred Russel Wallace – 1910 https://evolutionnews.org/2010/08/alfred_russel_wallace_co-disco/
Thus in conclusion, we see that LT's example of the 'perfect triangle', i.e. his appeal to the immaterial “Platonic realm” of mathematics, in and of itself, refutes LT's materialistic Darwinian worldview, and furthermore, mathematics itself instead offers fairly compelling proof that LarTanner himself must possess an immaterial mind and/or soul so as to be able to envision these perfect triangles in his imagination. I have a question for you LT, Verse:
Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul?
Supplemental notes:
THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010 Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel's critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/08/the-god-of-the-mathematicians KEEP IT SIMPLE - Edward Feser - April 2020 Excerpt: Mathematics appears to describe a realm of entities with quasi-­divine attributes. The series of natural numbers is infinite. That one and one equal two and two and two equal four could not have been otherwise. Such mathematical truths never begin being true or cease being true; they hold eternally and immutably. The lines, planes, and figures studied by the geometer have a kind of perfection that the objects of our ­experience lack. Mathematical objects seem ­immaterial and known by pure reason rather than through the senses. Given the centrality of mathematics to scientific explanation, it seems in some way to be a cause of the natural world and its order. How can the mathematical realm be so apparently godlike? The traditional answer, originating in Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, is that our knowledge of the mathematical realm is precisely knowledge, albeit inchoate, of the divine mind. Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world. For some thinkers in this tradition, mathematics thus provides the starting point for an argument for the existence of God qua supreme intellect.,,, https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/04/keep-it-simple August 2019 - Moreover, ever since modern science was born in medieval Christian Europe, science has had a history of looking for ‘platonic perfection’, and assuming the Mind of God to be behind that ‘platonic perfection’. That is to say, that science has a history of searching for perfect agreement between the immaterial mathematics that describe a facet of this universe and the experimental results that measure those mathematical predictions. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicists-need-courage-to-confront-the-collider-dilemma-says-boson-pioneer/#comment-682047
bornagain77
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
@98 LarTanner
In my imagination, I see perfect equilateral triangles.
In your imagination, you see an equilateral triangle. That what you are seeing is perfect is what you have to reason/ explain. Up until now, you are not even approaching the C level.
one cannot score higher than 300 in tenpin bowling.
Bowling rules can be changed.
agree, it’s subjective.
Good.
Now, please make a coherent argument or get out of the way. I find it tiresome to answer buckshot questions. I will not indulge these any more.
Be nice, remember? :) This is JVL's level of blah blah blah no games, etc. Translated it means: I can not defend my (poor) argument. Sorry that you thought this would be an easy task. It is not.
I know where you are trying to go.
Really?
For instance, you can elaborate on what seems to be a disdain for the subjective,
No disdain. What is subjective is just that, subjective. Beautiful and all that. But you can not pretend I am going to use your subjective yardstick to construct my interpretation of reality. Why should I?Truthfreedom
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
Truthfreedom @94. In my imagination, I see perfect equilateral triangles; one cannot score higher than 300 in tenpin bowling; agree it's subjective. Now, please make a coherent argument or get out of the way. I find it tiresome to answer buckshot questions. I will not indulge these any more. I know where you are trying to go. We all do. You can just get to the point and we could possibly proceed from there. For instance, you can elaborate on what seems to be a disdain for the subjective, which I hardly understand because the subjective is so wonderfully individual and human.LarTanner
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
Kf, Plantinga argument is for moral events not natural events. He tried to adapt it to natural events but most don't believe successfully. I also don't believe in any way that his adaptation is necessary to refute the God and evil argument. However, my argument is mainly aimed at natural events. Which is the primary source for the theodicy argument and which is mainly used in the argument against the Judeo Christian God. We have been down this path before. But I guess an occasional repeat is necessary to get people thinking. The real question which is behind all this is why does the world have unpleasant events and why it is necessary for this to be so. That is the "big question." Completely unrelated question: What HTML does this website accept in the comments section? I know it takes the blockquote, bold and italics. What else is available? Wordpress will take about anything but what applies to the comments?jerry
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
@86 Bornagain77:
Yes there is a reason that wikipedia dropped Dr. Lönnig, but that reason has nothing to Dr. Lönnig’s scholarship and expertise on Plant Genetics and has everything to do with the fact that an army of atheistic trolls are allowed to edit wikipedia at any moment.
You always put a smile on my lips. :) Wikipedia is a non peer-reviewed, open source website. Good to take a peek and gain some understanding about certain topics. That is all.Truthfreedom
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
@94 LarTanner Examples of perfection:
an equilateral triangle,
When have you seen a perfect equilateral triangle?
a score of 300 in tenpin bowling,
How is this 'perfect'?
a major seventh chord.
Subjective.Truthfreedom
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
Examples of perfection: an equilateral triangle, a score of 300 in tenpin bowling, a major seventh chord.LarTanner
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
@92 LarTanner
Yes.
Please.
but I don’t want to play a game.
Neither do I.
and be nice.
I am always nice. :)Truthfreedom
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
Truthfreedom @91. Yes, but I don't want to play a game. Make a point, please, and be nice.LarTanner
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
@90 LarTanner
I have gotten and established my ideas of the concept “perfection” the same as anyone else: education and experience.
Could you provide an example of 'perfection'?Truthfreedom
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
Truthfreedom @89: I have gotten and established my ideas of the concept "perfection" the same as anyone else: education and experience.LarTanner
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
@88 LarTanner
In this response, you seem to postulate a God who is imperfect
May I ask you, an imperfect H. sapiens creature, where did you get the idea of perfection from?Truthfreedom
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
EDTA @81: In this response, you seem to postulate a God who is imperfect as well as constrained in power. Do you believe in a God who could have elected not to create what you define as "evil"? Do you believe in a God who can elect to prevent "evil" (in your definition) from befalling those he favors? KF @85: Thanks for the pointer, but nothing in the post you cite does anything in particular for me.LarTanner
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
MatSpirit at 83 tries to qualify his criticism of Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig's – Senior Scientist Emeritus (Biologist) at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany – paper on Plant Galls, and states,
IF the plant was forming the gall by itself, for the benefit of the insect, then Darwin’s theory would be in question. But since it is the insect exploiting the plant, it no more violates evolutionary theory than an insect feeding on a leaf.
To compare Plant Galls to merely "an insect feeding on a leaf" is a gross misrepresentation of what is actually going on. Only someone who is more interested in misleading rhetoric rather than finding the truth would try to characterize it as such. The plant is very much cooperating in a intelligently designed symbiotic relationship that is extremely beneficial to the insects themselves. The abstract of Lönnig's paper itself makes this point clear and states, "To sum up: For insects, for example, the plants provide an unsurpassed five-star luxury hotel for free for the entire larval development (and often even more; see please below)."
Abstract For more than 330 years now it has been known that the service provided by the plants for gall formation “results in their own disfigurement” (Malpighi 1679). Massive infestations can induce stunting, chlorosis, wilting, and even death in certain plant species. Diameter of stem and the total height can be distinctly reduced. We even speak of “gall disease” (cecidiosis) in the case of heavy infestations adversely affecting the plants in culture and/or in the wild. However, in almost all the cases of what may be called ‘slight infections’, the effects are not so strongly deleterious and the plants seem to control and survive the parasitic load without major damage. For the gallers the plants usually provide optimal nutrition (feed and house the larvae), administer excellent microenvironments, enemy escape, produce safe and comfortable homes protecting their hosts (inter alia by phenolic compounds as tannic and gallic acid, displaying antioxidant, anti-bacterial, anti-inflammatory, and anti-fungal properties). In some cases, the plants even form “a closure similar to that of the ground-glass cap of a liqueur bottle” – to open exactly at the right time and in the optimal form – so that the parasite can easily press it out when ready for pupation. Also, some investigations have shown that proteins of inner-gall and plant tissue were “characteristic only for gall tissues”. Moreover, “the chlorenchyma cells within the nutritive tissue are generally homogenous and usually include a large nucleus, conspicuous nucleolus, high enzymatic activity, RNA richness, fragmented vacuole, numerous mitochondria, a dense/abundant cytoplasm, and the accumulation of carbohydrates (and lipids in some systems)” (Richardson et al. 2017); for additional special features, see text. As to a synopsis of the present state of the molecular investigations, cf. footnote 171 on p. 59. To sum up: For insects, for example, the plants provide an unsurpassed five-star luxury hotel for free for the entire larval development (and often even more; see please below). In short, entirely new organs (complex, refined, sophisticated, “high tech” galls), consisting of up to seven differentiated layers with diverse positive functions for the guests, are formed at the exclusive expense of the plant host, i. e. without any useful return by the animals (“fremddienliche Zweckmäßigkeit” (Erich Becher) – not easy to translate, but something like ‘extrinsic usefulness’, ‘disinterested suitability’, ‘well-directed extraneous utility’, closely akin to altruism; cf. p. 16). Now, Darwin formulated the following falsification criterium, among others, for his theory of natural selection – fully applicable to the modern neo-Darwinian versions of the theory as well, because: “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; “… If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Also: “Natural selection can produce nothing in one species for the exclusive good or injury of another; though it may well produce parts, organs, and excretions highly useful or even indispensable, or again highly injurious to another species, but in all cases at the same time useful to the possessor.” Inference reached on the basis of the evidence: Because in the case of the galls, in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it. The galls are not ‘useful to the possessor’, the plants. There is no space for these phenomena in the world of “the selfish gene” (Dawkins). Moreover, the same conclusion appears to be true for thousands of angiosperm species producing deceptive flowers (in contrast to gall formations, now for the exclusive good of the plant species) – a topic which should be carefully treated in another paper. http://www.weloennig.de/PlantGalls.pdf
So much for Matspirit's misleading claim that this "no more violates evolutionary theory than an insect feeding on a leaf." As to Matspirit's claim that this finding means that "Darwin’s theory would be in question." That is a humorous claim. This is far from the only falsifying scientific evidence against Darwin's theory that Darwinists simply blatantly ignore since it brings Darwin's theory 'into question'. Popper’s falsification criteria is considered the primary criteria in science for judging whether a theory is even to be considered scientific or not.
“In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.” – Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery
Here are a few falsifications of Darwin's theory that Darwinian atheists simply refuse to accept as falsifications of their theory,
Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.” Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
Besides Darwinists refusing to adhere to Popper's criteria of falsification for their supposedly scientific theory, by any other reasonable measure that one may wish to judge whether Darwinian evolution even qualifies as a science or not, and as is shown in the following video, Darwinian evolution fails to meet those criteria as well:
“There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.” – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17 Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw
Simply put, Darwinian evolution simply fails to qualify as a rigorous and testable science by any reasonable measure one may wish to invoke and is therefore more properly classified as a pseudoscience, even as a religion for atheists, rather than ever being classified as a real and testable science. Matspirit then claims,
Wikipedia knew what it was doing when it dropped Dr. Lönnig.
That claim is a joke. Wikipedia has a long history of being notoriously hostile towards Intelligent Design. Attempts to correct misrepresentations about ID on wikipedia are overwhelmed by a army of atheistic trolls:
Wikipedia's Tyranny of the Unemployed - David Klinghoffer - June 24, 2012 Excerpt: PLoS One has a highly technical study out of editing patterns on Wikipedia. This is of special interest to us because Wikipedia's articles on anything to do with intelligent design are replete with errors and lies, which the online encyclopedia's volunteer editors are vigilant about maintaining against all efforts to set the record straight. You simply can never outlast these folks. They have nothing better to do with their time and will always erase your attempted correction and reinstate the bogus claim, with lightning speed over and over again. ,,, on Wikipedia, "fact" is established by the party with the free time that's required to wear down everyone else and exhaust them into submission. The search for truth (on Wikipedia) yields to a tyranny of the unemployed. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/wikipedias_tyra061281.html
Even the co-founder of wikipedia agrees that wikipedia is unfairly biased against ID:
Larry Sanger, Co-founder of Wikipedia, Agrees That it Does not Follow its Own Neutrality Policy. - December 1, 2016 Excerpt: Mr. Sanger posted an article today about media bias in which he alluded to the neutrality policy he drafted. I replied (see the combox of the article):“Wikipedia’s neutrality policy.” I’ve been reading Wikipedia articles for years, and from the evidence I would not have thought such a thing exists, or, if it does, the name is somewhat misleading, because the policy would read something like: “On all matters cultural and political, Wikipedia will endeavor to crush conservative viewpoints. Neutrality will not be tolerated.” Just read the post on, for example, intelligent design theory. It is written by the theory’s antagonists, and all efforts to correct the post to reflect the real theory, as opposed to the straw man caricature presented by its opponents, are ruthlessly suppressed." In a response Mr. Sanger stated: "For the record, I agree with this. Wikipedia doesn’t live up to its policy and in fact deliberately misinterprets it on some issues. Although I founded Wikipedia, I’m also long gone from the organization and am now probably its biggest critic, so…" There you go folks. We ain’t making it up. The co-founder of Wiki agrees with us. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-sanger-co-founder-of-wikipedia-agrees-that-it-does-not-follow-its-own-neutrality-policy/
In fact, wikipedia itself states that it is, "not a reliable source for academic writing or research,"
Wikipedia: Academic use Excerpt: Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic writing or research. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything, and as a quick "ready reference", to get a sense of a concept or idea. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source.[1][2][3] Many[4] colleges and universities (especially in some high schools and private schools) have a policy that prohibits students from using Wikipedia as their source for doing research papers, essays, or anything equivalent. This is because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any moment,,, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use
Yes there is a reason that wikipedia dropped Dr. Lönnig, but that reason has nothing to Dr. Lönnig's scholarship and expertise on Plant Genetics and has everything to do with the fact that an army of atheistic trolls are allowed to edit wikipedia at any moment.bornagain77
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT
MatSpirit at 82,
BA @ 75 So God said they were all bad (including babies) and he warned them and then he killed them.
He did not say that they were evil. HE SAW that every intent of the hearts of man was evil.
“Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Genesis 6:5)
Then MatSpirit states,
Kind of like Hitler and the Jews. No thanks.
Not at all like Hitler and the Jews. If a comparison is to be made with Hitler, then God's wrath against unrepentant sinful man is much more like America, Britain, and even the atheistic Soviet Union, destroying Hitler and Germany because of their sins against humanity.bornagain77
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
01:23 AM
1
01
23
AM
PDT
LT, kindly, see the just above to Jerry. KFkairosfocus
April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply