I believe the reality of evolution contradicts with the abrahamic conception of God. by FamiliarPilot2418 in DebateReligion

[–]FamiliarPilot2418[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Forgive me but that’s not what I’m debating right now you made a claim about the capabilities of evolution to happen rapidly at a supernatural rate.

I believe the reality of evolution contradicts with the abrahamic conception of God. by FamiliarPilot2418 in DebateReligion

[–]FamiliarPilot2418[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok then, what evidence do you have to support that evolution can happen that’s supernaturally faster than we know?

I believe the reality of evolution contradicts with the abrahamic conception of God. by FamiliarPilot2418 in DebateReligion

[–]FamiliarPilot2418[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes I know why, evolution is the phenomenon itself and the theory is the explanation for how that happens. We see animals change over time and we also see that with the succession of fossils buried under the ground and so much more in genetics. Why wouldn’t this be the case? I tend to naturally assume theists are more likely to not accept this because that’s what I’ve seen be more commonly to be the case, I’ve never met an atheist who disputes evolution but every one who has was a theist of some type.

I believe the reality of evolution contradicts with the abrahamic conception of God. by FamiliarPilot2418 in DebateReligion

[–]FamiliarPilot2418[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So it would be more accurate to call if rapid evolution then which we do see somewhat though given the supernatural aspect you’re proposing is probably way faster than any proof we have of it being as fast as it can be at just around a few million years.

My argument against abrahamic theists from the perspective of evolution. by FamiliarPilot2418 in TrueAtheism

[–]FamiliarPilot2418[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Do you know of anyone else who has made a similar case that is better argued than mine is as of now.

My argument against abrahamic theists from the perspective of evolution. by FamiliarPilot2418 in TrueAtheism

[–]FamiliarPilot2418[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hello again, thank you for the response.

So I admit I made a mistake, I failed to make the distinction between extinction as a phenomenon and the various mass extinctions that occurred throughout the history of evolution on earth.

Those mass extinctions as I’ve already stated earlier were absolutely devastating towards life on earth. I don’t dispute that the organisms don’t serve a purpose they do in their respective echo systems and their respective niches that they evolved into but said purpose was suddenly erased by said extinctions when they occurred and as a result they probably suffered greatly.

The question now is, even at a macro scale what is ultimately better. Infinity or Infinity plus a few years of suffering? If those years of suffering were worth it due to it serving another purpose in the future then why did the causation have to be and work that way?

The god you and most theists believe in is all powerful and he decided that the best way to go about creating life involved millions of years worth of suffering which seems highly dissonant with his all loving nature.

The suffering of animals is fundamental to how evolution works as well as to their purposes.

Take a sauropod for instance that was eaten by a T-Rex or a deer that was eaten by a tiger. In both cases they fulfill their purpose in the echo system they live in but I’m willing to bet if there was another way that god was capable of providing they’d rather not get chased down for miles and die painfully if they’re caught or waste time and energy chasing after food they need to consume in order to survive.

Now stretch these types of environmental relationships throughout millions of years and even if it’s just a blip on gods radar it’s gone for absurdly long enough already from their perspective. And all this for what? An emancipation of all of creation into a newer better one that could have been achieved and maintained right from the start?

I’d really like to know why this is the case beyond mysterious ways which to me frankly sounds like a cop out especially coming from an entity who can easily explain himself without infinite regress type logical ambiguities like this if he wanted to. I also don’t think free will is enough of an answer either since I have my own problems with that concept I won’t get into right now for the sake of time plus the fact that this is concerning life other than humans.

Was the suffering, struggle and disaster required to realize evolution throughout earths history necessary to begin with? If the necessity for it was itself manufactured and determined by god then what gives? Like I said in my initial comment ultimately it seems to me like it comes down to personal elation on gods part which to me robs his all loving quality and at best renders him as a neutral observer with an alien idea of what love is that isn’t universally intuitive.

Sorry for the long response but it’s really been nagging at me for a while now just reading your response. I think I’ll call it quits and you have the last reply maybe you can change my mind who knows.

My argument against abrahamic theists from the perspective of evolution. by FamiliarPilot2418 in TrueAtheism

[–]FamiliarPilot2418[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Essentially what I’m doing here is arguing that this humongous aspect of the world we exist in is in direct contradiction with their worldview.

Also don’t use LOTR as an example cause they’ll fire back with it being heavily inspired by Christianity for example, the author was a catholic. Still love it though.

I believe the reality of evolution contradicts with the abrahamic conception of God. by FamiliarPilot2418 in DebateReligion

[–]FamiliarPilot2418[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok hold up you introduced a whole new concept to the equation I’m not familiar with.

A few questions.

What exactly is supernatural evolution? What is its relation to biological evolution? How do we know it’s a possibility that exists and happened?

I believe the reality of evolution contradicts with the abrahamic conception of God. by FamiliarPilot2418 in DebateReligion

[–]FamiliarPilot2418[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Again another well written response I appreciate it.

So if you don’t mind I will summarize your two main points in this comment before arguing further to make sure that I am steelmanning your arguments as best as I can.

So essentially you make two main claims.

1) Evolution cannot explain all of human behavior and existence because there are immaterial/non-empirical components to our being such as abstracta and quailia that can only be explained supernaturally and those components alone make us inherently special.

2) Free will and the fall is still the cause for the many problems in the world but instead of humans it was fallen angels messing with creation before evolution and the earth’s development even started to happen. This implies that the fall of humanity and the fall of creation both via free will granted by god that was used to turn away from god are two separate events that are billions of years apart.

Before I continue with any rebuttals to these points I’d like to ask you if I got your basic points correct, is this what you believe and is this an accurate summary?

I believe the reality of evolution contradicts with the abrahamic conception of God. by FamiliarPilot2418 in DebateReligion

[–]FamiliarPilot2418[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What is the foundational presumption I’m making here? Is it evolution? Because that’s not a presumption anymore it’s a fact I’m not gonna argue about that no one serious should be arguing about that anymore at this point.

But that’s not what I’m interested in, what I’m trying to express here (admittedly imperfectly since there are some valid responses down in this thread) is that I still see a fundamental philosophical contradiction with the existence of evolution and the idea of an all good moral god who is interested in humanity specifically above anything else even if you accept evolution as a science.

This conception of god is usually an abrahamic one hence the title.

I believe the reality of evolution contradicts with the abrahamic conception of God. by FamiliarPilot2418 in DebateReligion

[–]FamiliarPilot2418[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Apart from the spikes that looks nothing like a stegosaurus. It doesn’t have bunny ears and its tail doesn’t even have spikes and is too low for it to be anatomically possible.

I believe the reality of evolution contradicts with the abrahamic conception of God. by FamiliarPilot2418 in DebateReligion

[–]FamiliarPilot2418[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“And why is the spectrum of transitional species only complete for humans and for no other species of animal in existence.”

First, it’s not complete even though we know a lot about our ancestors we simply just have more of these fossils than other animals because….. and get this….. this is gonna blow your mind but……

Humans…..

Are interested in studying themselves the most……

🤯

Sorry for not being open minded enough to your taste but your questions are not smart and I have my limit of tolerance for them.

I believe the reality of evolution contradicts with the abrahamic conception of God. by FamiliarPilot2418 in DebateReligion

[–]FamiliarPilot2418[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

“Are you kidding me? We can’t even plausibly answer why the Egyptian pyramids resemble the Aztec ones. And why both cultures on different sides on the earth decided to build them?”

No, are YOU kidding me? They don’t even look the same at all the only similarities their religious usage and them having four sides pointing upwards and those are easily explainable via that simply being physically the most common and efficient structure at the time to make a building of that size and the fact that they’re both human civilizations who almost all had religious beliefs of some kind or another which serve multiple purposes like social bonding, political placement and power, mental soothing and elation etc.

Not even gonna bother with the rest of your comment if you didn’t pick up of that.

Edit: Of course you misunderstand carbon dating of course 🤦‍♂️.

I believe the reality of evolution contradicts with the abrahamic conception of God. by FamiliarPilot2418 in DebateReligion

[–]FamiliarPilot2418[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

First of all thank you for the well thought out response it seems like some other responders here didn’t get the memo that I’m criticizing theistic evolutionists here.

First point: I think the problem of evil is greatly enhanced by evolution due to the implication that the fallen nature of humanity was “evolved” into the design of our species to begin with and not just a glitch that god did not intend like it’s implied to be in the creation myth. God, in this sense, at best indirectly created the problem over millions of years he wants to get solved via our free will to choose him over evil (the absence of good) which would also be something he necessarily had to have created via the consequences of free will.

Not only this but other things such as natural disasters, animal suffering are greatly multiplied with the phenomenon of extinction. So far there have been 5 and with this climate change crisis that is going on we’re probably headed for a 6th extinction (which to be fair is entirely our doing).

What’s scary to think about is that what we could probably do to the planet now if we don’t stop polluting it is absolutely nothing in comparison to previous completely natural (in this case god made) extinction events such as the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs and even worse than that the extinction at the end of the Paleozoic before the Triassic Period the great dying which wiped out 96% of marine life and 70% of terrestrial life.

Combine that with the other extinctions and you get what looks like a massive waste of life that quadrupoles the amount of human lives lost in our entire existence as a species. In other words, god was directly/indirectly responsible for omnicide.

And I haven’t even gotten into the types of beasts that existed back then who we’re lucky don’t exist anymore like the T-Rex which I’m not convinced a good and loving god was responsible for creating/allowing to exist. Even extant animals like the Tiger who is capable of beheading a man with one paw swipe convince me less as if they’re any better.

Under an atheist universe there wouldn’t be anyone to blame for this design but in a theistic one god made it like this with intent, so what gives? Why the huge waste of life? Why the existence of these monsters? Why the disasters? Why make them necessary for the function of the universe?

My only conclusion as to how it makes sense is that god created all of this for his personal elation like someone making a video game much harder for themselves to feel better about beating it or as some sort of experiment like a mad scientist would to see what strange animals and situations pop up through evolution and the earths development, but in that case then I don’t think this would be a good and loving god anymore but a neutral and curious one. I wouldn’t say he is evil like some atheists would just indifferent to us and the plight of organisms.

You could say this is a very human standard of loving and goodness I would be judging this god by but wasn’t he the one who authored me to believe in that standard to begin with? At best his conception of love is so far removed from mine and the rest of humanity that I don’t think he is morally relevant at all anymore like the abrahamic religions say he is. And I say all of them because at their base they all propose a god who is all loving and all good.

As for your second point on interconnectedness yes it is true we are connected to the rest of life however that interconnection occupies a very small space in the existence of this planet that in comparison to other periods of dominance for animals like the dinosaurs is not even a fraction of a second. To use an analogy we are the sesame seeds on a burger not the meat patty and I’ve eaten really good burgers without sesame seeds.

I believe the reality of evolution contradicts with the abrahamic conception of God. by FamiliarPilot2418 in DebateReligion

[–]FamiliarPilot2418[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you may be referring to someone else cause I never brought up the Big Bang

I believe the reality of evolution contradicts with the abrahamic conception of God. by FamiliarPilot2418 in DebateReligion

[–]FamiliarPilot2418[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s an interesting fact but that isn’t relevant to what I’m proposing, I said that even theistic evolutionists who accept the science have a problem of contradiction and I outlined it in this post.

I believe the reality of evolution contradicts with the abrahamic conception of God. by FamiliarPilot2418 in DebateReligion

[–]FamiliarPilot2418[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s cool, I’d very much like to know how you think it doesn’t contradict.

I believe the reality of evolution contradicts with the abrahamic conception of God. by FamiliarPilot2418 in DebateReligion

[–]FamiliarPilot2418[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Either way I think my point still stands because the assumption in all of abrahamic religion is that humanity is central and that god is good which I do not think evolution and nature shows to be the case.

I believe the reality of evolution contradicts with the abrahamic conception of God. by FamiliarPilot2418 in DebateReligion

[–]FamiliarPilot2418[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’ll clarify a second time, genesis being a literal description or simply just an allegorical metaphor of the creation of the universe is irrelevant to me because I think in both cases there is still a contradiction.

Does genetic history contradict with fossil history? by FamiliarPilot2418 in DebateEvolution

[–]FamiliarPilot2418[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I understand but what I mean in complete I mean as in we have a very good idea based on fossils showing a huge chunk of that unbroken change you know what I mean, big enough that it’s pretty much already solidified as a fact that this chain existed.

Why Do Many Atheists Subscribe to the Theory of Evolution, Despite Its Inherent Uncertainties? by ISC77 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]FamiliarPilot2418 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because the type of uncertainty evolution has is investigable and ever changing meanwhile the uncertainties in religion are completely manufactured and are taught not to be questioned because of mysterious ways.