Evolution as evidence for atheism

[Captain Scarlet]

@Adrian. Quite so and technically correct. Especially means to a very great extent. However I know of know theologian nor philosphers who takes a Christian worldview who take a different stance to the one I have taken. How could they their god took on a personal material form. So I think this is semantics. For the avoidance of doubt I will restate my orginal post to assert christian theism as opposed to theism in general. I thought that was taken as read on a Christian thread? That says nothing for rhizo in terms of:

- validity of the syllogism to disprove mine, which is invalid

- The validity of refuting the original post on the basis of incredulity which is wrong

- That deism and pantheism are forms of theism. Which in general they are, but clearly in the specific they are not.

[DeistPaladin]

I find the argument from evil to be a weak argument against God simply because of the relativity involved.

Those old enough to remember an iconic and campy action movie of the 80s where it was said "what you call Hell, he calls home" (hey, philosophy is where you find it). This tag line underscores how evil and suffering are relative and why Heaven and Hell can't possibly exist.

Today in modern civilization, we enjoy the luxury that technology provides us. Yet we take it all for granted. Those in more primitive societies knew a harsher existence but to them, it was part of life.

If Hell were real, those condemned to it would eventually, after a few hundred years, get used to being on fire all the time, their eyes would adjust to the darkness and they'd reach the acceptance stage of grief. Those in Heaven would be spoiled by the luxuries until they became used to it.

Getting back to earth, if God were to cut the evil and suffering by half, we'd adjust our sensitivity to what remained until we arrived back at a new equilibrium. No amount of reduction of evil would satisfy us.

[The Omnissiunt One]

I find the argument from evil to be a weak argument against God simply because of the relativity involved.

Those old enough to remember an iconic and campy action movie of the 80s where it was said "what you call Hell, he calls home" (hey, philosophy is where you find it). This tag line underscores how evil and suffering are relative and why Heaven and Hell can't possibly exist.

Today in modern civilization, we enjoy the luxury that technology provides us. Yet we take it all for granted. Those in more primitive societies knew a harsher existence but to them, it was part of life.

If Hell were real, those condemned to it would eventually, after a few hundred years, get used to being on fire all the time, their eyes would adjust to the darkness and they'd reach the acceptance stage of grief. Those in Heaven would be spoiled by the luxuries until they became used to it.

Getting back to earth, if God were to cut the evil and suffering by half, we'd adjust our sensitivity to what remained until we arrived back at a new equilibrium. No amount of reduction of evil would satisfy us.

Perhaps this is true - it is certainly an interesting thought - but I have doubts about its truth, and about whether it would make a difference to the problem of evil anyway.

Suffering, even if we get used to it, is still less preferable than pleasure, even if we get used to that. Even if an African can adapt completely to permanent starvation (which I find dubious), not being in a state of starvation is clearly preferable to anyone. Indeed, God could make it so that we never found a constant amount of pleasure boring, in which case the heaven and hell examples would be untrue.

Personally, I find the problem of evil - including Captain Scarlet's version of it - to be a very convincing argument against Christian theism. Let's examine the premises again:

1) God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving (according to Christianity).
2) Any deity fitting that descripton cares for his creations' welfare (especially that of humans, according to Christianity, as we are made in his image), if the definition of 'loving' is anything like ours, or the one he gives in his moral commands.
3) God would want to reduce suffering as much as possible, allowing for any higher ends which he may wish to serve.
4) Evolution causes suffering.
5) God could (from 1) produce creatures without evolution.
6) God should wish to produce creatures through a means other than evolution.
7) We evolved.
8) Ergo, the god of Christian theism doesn't exist.

Now, it may be asserted that God made us evolve for some reason known only to him, but as no reason is presented for this, then it is a fairly implausible suggestion. Therefore, the god of Christian theism probably does't exist.

[fr0d0]

Now, it may be asserted that God made us evolve for some reason known only to him, but as no reason is presented for this, then it is a fairly implausible suggestion. Therefore, the god of Christian theism probably does't exist.

Do you mean God didn't present a reason or you don't see a reason for evolution?

[The Omnissiunt One]

Do you mean God didn't present a reason or you don't see a reason for evolution?

I mean that there's no clear and plausible reason, and theists can't provide one, why God should choose to make us through evolution. Est-ce que tu as compris?

[Captain Scarlet]

Do you mean God didn't present a reason or you don't see a reason for evolution?

I mean that there's no clear and plausible reason, and theists can't provide one, why God should choose to make us through evolution. Est-ce que tu as compris?

Indeed the whole point of this thread is if you were god it would seem unlikely to choose a wasteful and painful process to create new species and eventually us. Why leave it for 4 bn years after the earth formed or 14 bn after the universe formed. Why leave us with vestigial structures? Wouldn't you just get it right and give us max chance of joining him in fellowship. It isn't conclusive but evolution is more likely under atheism than theism.

[fr0d0]

Do you mean God didn't present a reason or you don't see a reason for evolution?

I mean that there's no clear and plausible reason, and theists can't provide one, why God should choose to make us through evolution. Est-ce que tu as compris?

My question was do you (we) understand outside of religion why evolution is cruel.

If we surmise that evolution was necessary, then how can we assume God to be culpable?

[Captain Scarlet]

Do you mean God didn't present a reason or you don't see a reason for evolution?

I mean that there's no clear and plausible reason, and theists can't provide one, why God should choose to make us through evolution. Est-ce que tu as compris?

My question was do you (we) understand outside of religion why evolution is cruel.

If we surmise that evolution was necessary, then how can we assume God to be culpable?

We can't surmise that due to omnipotence. God would have had a free choice.

[The Omnissiunt One]

If we surmise that evolution was necessary, then how can we assume God to be culpable?

As CS said, why would evolution be necessary to an omnipotent being?

[fr0d0]

As CS said, why would evolution be necessary to an omnipotent being?

Not necessary, but clearly evident.