Evolution as evidence for atheism

[Captain Scarlet]

Why would god select evolution as a means of creating new species and having them adapt over time. Evolution is a massively wasteful process creating many damaging mutations which leads to unecessary suffering in the lifeforms it works upon? Either evolution is false, which seems unlikely given all available evidence (here come the fundies!), or god is uncaring and wasteful of resource in a finite universe. Evolution is more likely on the basis that atheism is true.

[Rhizomorph13]

Because he might want things to work that way. This simple sentence defeats your argument from incredulity.

Have a nice day,
Rhizo

[Captain Scarlet]

Because he might want things to work that way. This simple sentence defeats your argument from incredulity.

Have a nice day,
Rhizo

Not if he is all loving.

An argument from incredulity is where you cannot imagine the converse being true so you draw a false conclusion. You will note I have stated the it is more likely if atheism is true, not that it conclusively disproves theism. In addition you'll note I have stated the alternative conclusion that evolution could be false and thereby have imagined alternative if IMO less satisfactory conclusion. This argument for atheism from evolution is correctly stated. I'm afraid your statement was simplistic not simple.

and thank you I will , you too

[DeistPaladin]

Why would god select evolution as a means of creating new species and having them adapt over time. Evolution is a massively wasteful process creating many damaging mutations which leads to unecessary suffering in the lifeforms it works upon? Either evolution is false, which seems unlikely given all available evidence (here come the fundies!), or god is uncaring and wasteful of resource in a finite universe. Evolution is more likely on the basis that atheism is true.

Clearly God is neither perfect nor omnipotent.

[Minimalist]

Nor existant!

[Rhizomorph13]

Because he might want things to work that way. This simple sentence defeats your argument from incredulity.

Have a nice day,
Rhizo

Not if he is all loving.

An argument from incredulity is where you cannot imagine the converse being true so you draw a false conclusion. You will note I have stated the it is more likely if atheism is true, not that it conclusively disproves theism. In addition you'll note I have stated the alternative conclusion that evolution could be false and thereby have imagined alternative if IMO less satisfactory conclusion. This argument for atheism from evolution is correctly stated. I'm afraid your statement was simplistic not simple.

and thank you I will , you too

Where did you define God as loving? Azagthoth is a God and it is completely unaware of what it does. An unaware god would allow anything to happen. Even if you were you to restate your claim using the Christian God it is very easy to see from Genesis that this world is a fallen world which leads to the idea that God might just want it to be this way because it teaches a lesson or something.

Rhizo

[The Omnissiunt One]

Theodicies like that one are flawed beyond belief. If God allows suffering to 'teach us a lesson', then his morality is nothing like ours, and so why call him God? Of course, the problem of evil fails if you posit an indifferent god, but I think Captain Scarlet was implying a Christian god.

[Rhizomorph13]

When presenting an argument, it is important to state all premises that are important to the argument.

[Captain Scarlet]

Where did you define God as loving? Azagthoth is a God and it is completely unaware of what it does. An unaware god would allow anything to happen. Even if you were you to restate your claim using the Christian God it is very easy to see from Genesis that this world is a fallen world which leads to the idea that God might just want it to be this way because it teaches a lesson or something.

Rhizo

I agree if you look at the biblical god. This is an argument against a theist worldview. Theism is a philosophical worldview which claims that there is a personal creator of the universe. Christianity is a theism and I think Christians would claim that the NT supercedes the OT and that their god is perfect. Perfection includes omnibenevolance or in plain English;all loving. This view is inconsistent with the foundationsl texts of the religion but is reconciled by "accomodations" made by theologians who spin the bible passages as metaphors or literal depending on the text/situation. So if you wish to attack the argument you need to point out flaws in the premise or show where the conclusion is wrong as it's based on induction.

[Rhizomorph13]

Captain Scarlet,

So now God is perfect AND a personal creator of the universe? Any other unstated premises you would like to add to your argument?

1. Theism is simply a belief in God/god/ or gods
2. A god that is indifferent can be conceived
3. Therefore evolution does not prove atheism

Rhizo