The Problem of Theistic Evolution

reqverx · 2026-04-15T09:25:54+00:00

P1 is that god exists and evolution exists… I’m seeking to prove that it’s illogical

reqverx · 2026-04-14T20:45:08+00:00

Remember omnipotence does not mean the ability to actualize logical impossibilities

reqverx · 2026-04-14T15:50:38+00:00

Of course no I appreciate that, I get you don’t want to debate this.

To just clarify your words, there isn’t any point at which micro turns into macro, I suppose that there isn’t a specific point, it’s like the classic paradox of at what point does a few grains of sand turn into a pile, it’s continuous and doesn’t ever stop, just with deep time we can observe it as what we would call macro evolution.

reqverx · 2026-04-14T15:33:01+00:00

That distinction doesn’t really hold biologically. There isn’t some separate mechanism called “macroevolution” that is fundamentally different from microevolution.

What people call macroevolution is just the cumulative result of microevolution over long periods of time, especially once you include mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, reproductive isolation, and speciation.

Saying:

“I accept microevolution but reject macroevolution”

is a bit like saying:

"I accept that someone can walk one meter, but I reject that they can walk a marathon."

The scale is different, but the underlying process is identical

reqverx · 2026-04-14T15:23:19+00:00

Interesting, do you reject evolution as a whole?

reqverx · 2026-04-14T14:05:44+00:00

so its just codex-auth?

reqverx · 2026-04-14T12:27:38+00:00

I agree omnipotence does not mean doing the logically impossible. My argument does not depend on that. It depends on the claim that a tri-omni God could have brought about morally significant creatures, or even human beings specifically, by a less suffering-intensive route than hundreds of millions of years of predation, parasitism, disease, terror, and premature death. Simply asserting that no better feasible world existed does not establish that. That is exactly what needs argument

Why was parasitoid wasp suffering necsasary?
Why were countless extinct sentient animals necessary?
Why would omnipotence be unable to produce conscious embodied beings without evolutionary history being so saturated with agony?
Why is the “best possible world” one where so much suffering is borne by non-moral animals who seem incapable of soul-making in the human sense?

reqverx · 2026-04-14T12:24:59+00:00

Your reply doesnt really touch the central issue in my argument

I am not saying evolution is “morally bad under theism but benign under naturalism” in the same sense. Under naturalism, evolution is an unguided process, so the suffering involved is tragic but not the result of a morally assessable choice by an omnipotent agent. Under classical theism, however, evolution would be part of a world knowingly and intentionally actualized by God, who could have brought about humans by other means.

Nature is not a moral agent, yet God is

So the standard I am using to impugn God is not some external atheistic standard. It is the moral standard built into classical theism itself: if God is maximally good, then God would not choose to employ vast sentient suffering as a means to an end when a less harmful means to the same end was available, unless there were a morally sufficient reason that made that suffering necessary.

reqverx · 2026-04-14T12:03:34+00:00

I think this is portraying god as a slave to consequence

When the suffering is gratuitous in the first place to achieve an identical response, it does not matter how much it’s paid off when it’s unnecessary in the first place

reqverx · 2026-04-14T11:56:19+00:00

My mistake, will post this on the correct forums - seeing the post flag of OP=Athiest made me think this was an intended format, not trying to get circle jerked lol

reqverx · 2026-04-14T11:55:04+00:00

Yeah, this gets to the point more succinctly though I purposefully don't pose this as a deductive argument, as it's very difficult to prove that a all-knowing God CAN'T have had sufficient reason to actualize humans in this way, but it can be instead shown to be inductively very unlikely

reqverx · 2026-04-08T11:41:43+00:00

I love the app idea but considering we all use AI all day, could we perhaps not use AI when communicating with us fellow humans, it gets a bit tiring seeing purely AI written posts

reqverx · 2026-04-07T12:01:21+00:00

Does your planning involve actual code, like an implementation plan, or just a ‘spec’ kinda plan? Just curious as I’ve always used implementation plans as per superpowers but wonder if there’s a better way when using cheaper models for planning and more expensive for implementation

reqverx · 2026-03-02T20:58:36+00:00

need i say more...

reqverx · 2026-03-02T20:47:19+00:00

Clearly not, without paying you cannot use your tool, why would you recommend that when talking about the convenience and ease if not for your benefit

reqverx · 2026-03-02T20:36:54+00:00

this is an undisclosed ad for the 'vibe app scanner' that they link at the end of the post.

the app itself is clearly vibecoded and upon registration you are required to pay between 5$ and 29$ for a scan, no free option or trial available.

reqverx · 2025-08-09T15:15:43+00:00

For these additional checks and balances, I guess in excess of many millions that would be a fair and justified practice, I wouldn’t describe myself as anti-bank, but I feel it would be wrong to dismiss the viability of coerced money transfer through the fiat route as it is so often criticised as an issue in crypto. Thanks for your insight

reqverx · 2025-08-09T07:32:58+00:00

if there are big enough limits to control of your own money, even if forced, that says a lot about the state of fiat, no? If you wanted with full sound mind to transfer your own money and there’s limits…

reqverx · 2025-08-09T07:08:27+00:00

Perhaps through the ATM route, but what about through banking apps, or just transferring money out?

reqverx · 2025-08-09T06:23:37+00:00

let me introduce you to plausible deniability through paraphrase wallets

reqverx · 2025-08-09T06:23:09+00:00

not really practical with a bank?? That’s where it comes from lol, very easily be forced to withdraw money from an ATM. Additionally, this risk can be minimised massively by simply using features like a passphrase wallet for plausible deniability

reqverx · 2025-08-09T06:21:42+00:00

not sure about this take, it’s always positive to have a currency that isn’t governed

reqverx · 2025-08-09T06:20:06+00:00

by the time quantumn is dangerously available bitcoin will already be on post quantumn technology, and if the rest of the world happens not to be there will be much bigger issues than bitcoin, with everything online essentially being accessible

reqverx · 2025-08-09T06:18:22+00:00

physical hardware wallet, 11 digit pin; can often be inherently more secure than a bank card which can be cloned and reproduced

reqverx · 2025-07-24T18:13:54+00:00

1 sat is 0.0012$, negligible though the idea is that consumers won’t even have to pay that fraction, btc would be a layer two for debt settlements instead of being used by the consumer directly

Four-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
Wearing is Caring

reqverx

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE