Evolution as evidence for atheism

[DeistPaladin]

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

Well, if you're looking to disprove an omnipotent god, evolution does that before you can even discuss the process. An omnipotent god could simply create everything as desired without the need of doing it over the process of millions of years (or, for that matter, six days).

Further, Christianity hinges on "the fall of mankind", which Jesus was required to save us from. Evolution means no Adam and Eve, no tree with forbidden fruit, no fall and consequently, no need for Jesus.

[Captain Scarlet]

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

Well, if you're looking to disprove an omnipotent god, evolution does that before you can even discuss the process. An omnipotent god could simply create everything as desired without the need of doing it over the process of millions of years (or, for that matter, six days).

Further, Christianity hinges on "the fall of mankind", which Jesus was required to save us from. Evolution means no Adam and Eve, no tree with forbidden fruit, no fall and consequently, no need for Jesus.

I agree. But sophisticated theologians hedge on literalism blunting attacks from scriptural inconsistency or falsehoods. I don't say their views or internally consistent nor convincing but ultimately it's like wrestling greasy eels in a vat of warm crude oil. Therefore the best approach for me is to hold theism to account for the facts of evolution against the supposed abilities and qualities of a perfect god.

[BiblicalCreationist]

Evolution is a basis for Atheism even though it does prove anything. GOD did not use evolution as this puts Death before man. "Billions of years" of death had to occur then Adam appeared and Eve made from Adam. Then all of a sudden everything is perfect for however many years. Then death resumes it toll as Adam falls. The Bible says that Death entered in the world by man (Physical). If there was death before man then the Bible is wrong for this is a contradiction violating the law of non-contradiction. If he made these earthly bodies in Billions of years through evolution why would He be able to give us our glorified bodies in a "Twinkling of an eye?" Since it took "billions of years" ro create the old earth - how long will he take to create the new earth? Billions of years? Just as Apostle Paul on Mars Hill debated a form of evolutionary theory in Acts 17.

On the Atheist Evolutionist part I want to ask them how knowledge is possible. Let's start with the beginning of the universe. In their worldview they believe that the universe Spontaneously started or the BB - Big Bang. Problems with the Big Bang:

1) Where are all the Population III stars?
2) Where is the anti-matter the universe needs to prove a Big Bang?
3) Who was their to witness the beginning happen and document down its existence happening?
-- They have to assume the BB happened without 100% knowing it ever happened since they were not there billions of years ago - nor can you test the past. They say they look at the present evidence and draw conclusions. But how do they not know that over that "billions of years" it has or has not changed in which determines truly what happened? They cannot prove it - since they do not know the past.

It could not happen spontaneously since Something cannot will itself into existence since it would have no nature. Without a nature it has no attributes, without attributes something cannot will itself into existence since it could not produce such actions. A stone knife could not become a knife unless someone acted upon the rock to make it that. A painting could not become a painting until the paper was acted upon by a painter. A building could not become a building until the materials to build a building were acted upon by an outside force to build a building. Just as the universe could not have been the universe until it was acted upon from an outside force to create the universe.

Everything in Atheism and Evolution (which they both go together) is based upon relativism. If we are subject unto no one but ourselves that means we can believe whatever we want and cannot condemn others for they believe according to our standards. To someone killing may be wrong since it is murder but to an evolutionist it might be considered right since he is just trying to survive (only the strong survive). How could one condemn someone else based upon their own moral standard if the other person has their moral standard also? How could we know what is right and wrong in this dog eat dog world? I am not saying Atheists cannot be moral because they can. Some may say that society's and government's make the moral standard for people. Well, just because the government has a standard for right and wrong does that make what is right - right and wrong - wrong? No. Just because they set what is right and wrong that is what they BELIEVE is right and wrong. So, how do we know what is right and wrong if there was no absolute basis for the cause of morality? It is universally accepted that killing is murder -- that is until you take GOD out of the subject but they will know what they have done if the committed murder even if their tradition says its alright. For something to be universally accept it has to be absolute (a standard non-changing).

If everything was relative and we did not need absolutes to determine truth then how do we know 2 + 2 = 4?
Is it only 4 because you believe it is 4? Is it because of where you live that makes it 4? Just because the majority of people believe it is 4 does it make it 4 ? No. Or is it a universal law that is accepted as fact that 2 + 2 = 4? This is an absolute - The Law of Mathematics. But Atheists do not need logical absolutes since we have no higher power to set those standards. No man can decide for what mankind is to believe since he is equal to all other human beings. I can type more, but I got church to attend. Be Blessed my Brethren.

Bro.Matthew

[Tiberius]

Evolution is a basis for Atheism even though it does prove anything.

Atheism was around before evolution. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the existence of God, so I fail to see how it would even be a basis for atheism.

GOD did not use evolution as this puts Death before man. "Billions of years" of death had to occur then Adam appeared and Eve made from Adam. Then all of a sudden everything is perfect for however many years. Then death resumes it toll as Adam falls. The Bible says that Death entered in the world by man (Physical). If there was death before man then the Bible is wrong for this is a contradiction violating the law of non-contradiction.

Then it looks like your Bible is wrong. I'd also like to point out that evolutionary theory doesn't say there was billions of years of death and then Adam & Eve appeared. Adam & Eve don't come into it. Evolution is more about life (reproduction) than death.

If he made these earthly bodies in Billions of years through evolution why would He be able to give us our glorified bodies in a "Twinkling of an eye?"

Because your Bible isn't correct. It is wrong, and us looking at reality instead of reading and blindly believing what people say has led us to that conclusion.

In their worldview they believe that the universe Spontaneously started or the BB - Big Bang.

No we don't. Atheists don't believe in God. That is the only thing we find common amongst ourselves. Being an atheist doesn't mean you believe in the Big Bang. In fact, one of the main objectors to the Big Bang when it arose as a theory was Fred Hoyle, an atheist.

1) Where are all the Population III stars?

They all burned out in the early universe.

2) Where is the anti-matter the universe needs to prove a Big Bang?

The Big Bang produced both matter and anti-matter. When matter and anti-matter are brought together, they annihilate each other and convert to energy, however recent experiments have shown that there is a bias towards matter in these conversions. 1% of matter is left behind, which is why there is no natural anti-matter in the universe, but still matter. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/scienc....html?_r=1

3) Who was their to witness the beginning happen and document down its existence happening?
-- They have to assume the BB happened without 100% knowing it ever happened since they were not there billions of years ago - nor can you test the past. They say they look at the present evidence and draw conclusions. But how do they not know that over that "billions of years" it has or has not changed in which determines truly what happened? They cannot prove it - since they do not know the past.

Nobody was there. You have to say the same for your creation story though. Adam & Eve didn't write the Old Testament; it was written later, but how do you know it was written accurately? You have to assume...to take it on faith.

Whereas for our position, we have evidence. We have background radiation, we can see the universe expanding, red shift and blue shift. All the evidence we have points in one direction; to a smaller universe than was contained within a singularity, up until the moment of the Big Bang.

It could not happen spontaneously since Something cannot will itself into existence since it would have no nature. Without a nature it has no attributes, without attributes something cannot will itself into existence since it could not produce such actions. A stone knife could not become a knife unless someone acted upon the rock to make it that. A painting could not become a painting until the paper was acted upon by a painter. A building could not become a building until the materials to build a building were acted upon by an outside force to build a building. Just as the universe could not have been the universe until it was acted upon from an outside force to create the universe.

Look up quantum fluctuations. Alternatively, why are you assuming the universe had a creation? The current scientific theory puts it as always being there, since time started at the moment of the Big Bang, and the matter was already there.

Everything in Atheism and Evolution (which they both go together) is based upon relativism.

No...

If we are subject unto no one but ourselves that means we can believe whatever we want and cannot condemn others for they believe according to our standards.

But we aren't subject to no one but ourselves. We are subject to each other; we are a social species. We need each other to survive, because on our own we are one of the most useless species on the planet.

If everything was relative and we did not need absolutes to determine truth then how do we know 2 + 2 = 4?

Mathematics is a human invention. It doesn't have a place in the natural world; only in our minds. There is no universal law (as in, natural law) that states this, but there is a mathematical inductive argument that does.

[Darwinian]

Even money!!!

[Captain Scarlet]

@BiblicalCreationist. Wow that was an emotional tirade and a fallacy fest. I don't know where to start there is soo much choice. Have a go at Adrians responses first.

However I did not say that evolution is a basis for atheism. Just that evolution makes atheism more likely to be true than Christian theism. Atheism and evolution are quite separate things.

Also your TAG based arguments around mathematics are correctly put in their place by Adrian. Maths is an abstract concept of the human mind. As such within the framework of mathematics it is a trivial question to ask if numbers exist and whether they are transcendent concepts, ansolute laws etc, of course this is true. Outside of that framework (in the objectively real world) numbers do not exist as they are a construct only within maths and the human mind. This is where all TAG arguments break down (TAG for Morals, TAG for Logic etc).

[DeistPaladin]

Also your TAG based arguments around mathematics are correctly put in their place by Adrian. Maths is an abstract concept of the human mind. As such within the framework of mathematics it is a trivial question to ask if numbers exist and whether they are transcendent concepts, ansolute laws etc, of course this is true. Outside of that framework (in the objectively real world) numbers do not exist as they are a construct only within maths and the human mind. This is where all TAG arguments break down (TAG for Morals, TAG for Logic etc).

Even as a deist, I find some of the arguments proposed for God to be mind-numbingly stupid. The Transcendental and Ontological Arguments are prime examples, and yet they're routinely offered by Christians with a smug "checkmate" attitude.

In the spirit of logical positivism, I'd say that these arguments don't even rise to the level of being ruled "false". They are flat out non sequiturs. They make no sense at all. They're the equivalent of saying "Wednesday quacking planet Jupiter kumquats pinecones therefore God exists".

The TAG argument tries to state that logic, objective morals and other rules are somehow proofs that God exists. There are many ways to argue against this but fundamentally, it's a classic non sequitur. Logic is based on observation and experience while morality is based on our ideas of how we should treat one another. I can imagine these things existing in a universe without a deity and therefore it does not follow that one must exist because these things exist.

The Ontological argument is even more idiotic. Because something can be imagined to exist means that it does? I can imagine myself having a million dollars in my desk drawer and actually having a million dollars is better than not having a million dollars, therefore... Damn, it didn't work.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Just out of interest, why are you a deist? Are you convinced by the Cosmological/Teleological arguments?

[DeistPaladin]

Just out of interest, why are you a deist? Are you convinced by the Cosmological/Teleological arguments?

First I would say that I see the natural universe as a grand machine, a view that implies an engineer. However, this isn't proof since atheists could counter that it's not a machine but something that explains itself.

Second, I would say that the human mind is incredible in its potential and that much came together in our evolution to make that happen. However, this isn't proof since atheists could cite "climbing mount improbable" and say the highly evolved brain is a fortunate bi-product.

Looking for signs of benevolent design that don't fit into natural selection is difficult, almost by definition. See "the sentient puddle". I offered one such feature in my "Nature's God and Homosexuality" video, that homosexuality is natural and a way that nature provides alternate families to adopt children (both in the animal kingdom and in human civilization where it's allowed). However, atheists can still dismiss this as fortunate.

Finally, I would just say that I'm not an atheist because ...well, I'm just not. For whatever reason, delusion or my instincts are on to something, every fiber of my being is convinced that the universe isn't an accident and there's some kind of mind out there somewhere behind it all (at the same time, I've never felt God should be "feared" or demands worship). I even went through a phase for about two weeks where I wondered what was wrong with me, why I couldn't be a "normal atheist" like all of my friends and colleges in the freethought community. I've come to terms with it since. I have the heart of a believer and the mind of a skeptic. Deism is an accord between the two, allowing me a spirituality that's kept real and grounded in the natural universe.

As you've pointed out in another post, the differences are only ones of abstract philosophy. We agree that we live in a natural universe and nothing's coming out of the clouds to save us if we destroy our planet.

[Edwardo Piet]

What I wonder is what your opinion is on the point that however fine-tuned and amazing the universe is, God would have to be even more fine-tuned if he created it without there being an explanation for him. He'd require an even bigger explanation.

What's your opinion on that?