Question on Theistic Evolution

[Simon Moon]

Problem is, saying that evolution 'happened as G-d intended' has zero explanatory power. It adds nothing to human knowledge.

How is saying that evolution 'happened as G-d intended', any different than saying 'evolution happened as evolution causing pixies intended'?

Neither choice has any more evidence than the other. They both require something not in evidence. Natural explanations for evolution are entirely supported by evidence.

You are making a false equivalency here.


Wait a minute here...

You've been posting here for quite a while, and you still don't understand the atheist position? What gives?

Most atheists do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that a god does not exist. For most, the atheist position is that theists have met their burden of proof to support their claim that a god does exist. Until theists meet their burden of proof, I have no warrant to believe their claim.

I have zero burden of proof that your god does not exist. None.

I am just waiting for theists to prove they are right. Until then, my lack of belief is 100% justified.

---

Your lack of belief is 100% justified, but I also have zero burden of proof because I'm not asking you to change your position.

Correct. If you are not trying to convince anyone, then you do not have a burden of proof.

But most theists here are trying to convince me that they are right.

You are a pleasant exception to most theists I encounter.

It doesn't matter what anyone believes; those are just thoughts we have in our heads. They have no bearing on the world, and thinking G-d is or isn't real doesn't make it so. Regardless of how you think the world got here, the world is here, and we should deal with that first and foremost. How it got here is nowhere near as important as what we should do with it now that it is here.

I do not agree.

What one believes does have bearing on the world. One's beliefs do not live in a vacuum, they inform one's actions.

The persecution of homosexuals is directly a result of beliefs that live in people's heads. Honor killings in the Muslim world, the Westboro Baptist church protesting at funerals, the Caste system in India, Christians that let their children die because they feel 'god' is going to heal them, etc, etc, etc, are all caused by thoughts in people's heads that they believe are true.

And an atheist can claim to know something with absolute certainty, and that's fine. But that certainty doesn't transfer to me and to date, no atheist has been able to demonstrate to my satisfaction that G-d doesn't exist.

I never said that an atheist can't claim to know something with absolute certainty. I claim to know I exist.

But that certainty doesn't transfer to me and to date, no atheist has been able to demonstrate to my satisfaction that G-d doesn't exist.

Again, you have that completely backwards. A rational person should not hold a belief until it is proven wrong, they should withhold belief until it is proven right (supported by evidence).

If one continues believes an existential claim, until it is proven wrong, this is a sign that that person does not care if their beliefs are true or not. They are ignoring the best tools humans have developed to tell if a claim is true, or likely true.