An omnipotent being could make a rock so heavy it couldn't lift it, and then lift it anyway. That's what omnipotence means.Eddie the head said:
Poll: Do you support evolution?
- Thread starter Matthew Jabour
- Start date
I always find it funny that people present these arguments as if they haven't been addressed, as if they're new. This has been debated for a long, long time. There are in fact 5 different types of omnipotence, and this paradox only applies to some of them (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox).Hafrael said:
Of course, to the geologist the answer is simple: beer. Specifically, the beer can experiment. If God is omniscient, he'd know about pore fluid pressure, and know that lifting dead weight isn't the only way to handle the situation. Never believe Sheldon Cooper--fantastic advances in science have been made via copious amounts of drinking!
The REAL issue is theodicy. Omnipotence+omniscience=valid solutions. Omnipotence+omnsicence+omnibenevolence=problems. Theodicy is the school of thought attempting to address that problem (remember, in science it is no flaw to accept a proposition ad arguendum in order to explore the logical consequences of that position--in other words, the mere fact that I do not believe in a deity in no way prevents me from engaging in discussions of the implications of such a being, and in fact such discussions are necessary in order to support the notion that "There is no God" is a scientificaly valid position).
If you wish to bring theology into this discussion, let's pay our dues, shall we? A lot of great minds have worked on these problems, and even if they are wrong it is incumbant upon us, if we value intellectual rigor, to at least familiarize ourselves with the highlights before we enter into the discussion. We expect no less from Creationists, after all.
I don't think this is much of a problem.Dinwatr said:
Omnipotence allows the being perfect self-control. So such a being can easily restrict themselves from interfering with their own projects. This is how the being can create a rock they can't lift; by simply choosing not to lift it.
Omnibenevolence does not demand no evil, just justice (at least).
And so we come to humans, who are granted the ability to choose between good and evil. Omnipotence allows such a creation to exist even though omnibenevolence does not wish to see any evil. Originally, there is no evil (or pain or suffering or what have you) in the world until the humans choose it, and then they suffer the consequences of straying. Omnipotence could fix this in a moment, but does not as that would strip us of free will. Omniscience means that the being still sees everything and feels pain too through the perfect empathy of omnibenevolence. Omnibenevolence promises eventual justification and also grants leniency, as well as promising all good things later and providing some today, but cannot demand immediate rectification to an all-good state due to the constraints omnipotence has placed upon it.
Because we are human and because we have the choice to do good or bad, preventing all bad from happening would rob us of or autonomy. So the omnipotent being prevents his own (total) interference even though we go against his nature and hurt him. The glory is always with the humans who choose good, but you cannot have that without the choice.
All I know is, I'm expected to support one way or the other because, either way, I'm being told that's what happened (or most likely happened).
I'll support something when I'm actually in a position to find out what happened myself (as close to first-hand as I possibly can), as opposed to being someone who was just taught about it by my teacher/mentor who was taught about it by his teacher/mentor and so forth.
And even then, it's not of much importance to me. I'm more interested in what's going to happen than what already happened.[/quote]
This is a fairly famous image from time, taking all the skulls from the various humans from throughout history.
Want further evidence? May I introduce you to ring species.
When species encounter a natural obstacle it can't get over or through, it tends to go around it. Giant mountains, valleys, you name it. For our example, lets use Gulls.
The gulls are far north somewhere in Siberia. They can?t go further north, do to the frigid climate. However, the gulls can spread east and west, finding new food resources and nesting sights. For a while, this process only appears of caused only minor local variations. Maybe the colors are a bit different, some of the meals change, but all the gulls can mate with any other gull that is flying range.
Millions of years later, the gulls has spread entirely around the North pole, one making a trip across the Atlantic to Britain, while the rest have settled in Sweden. So, some of the British gulls fly to Sweden, the species has come full circle. However, when spring comes, cross mating happens, there are no eggs from the unions of these gulls. It appears they are no longer the same species.
The British gulls can still successfully mate with the Canadian gulls, the Canadians can still breed with the ones in Alaska, those can mate with the gulls in Siberia, who can have sex with the birds in Moscow, who can still create eggs with the Swedish gulls.
But the British gulls are genetically distinct enough from the Swedish gulls that they can no longer mate.
This is what happened to the Herring gulls, very clear evidence for evolution. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
I'll support something when I'm actually in a position to find out what happened myself (as close to first-hand as I possibly can), as opposed to being someone who was just taught about it by my teacher/mentor who was taught about it by his teacher/mentor and so forth.
And even then, it's not of much importance to me. I'm more interested in what's going to happen than what already happened.[/quote]
This is a fairly famous image from time, taking all the skulls from the various humans from throughout history.
Want further evidence? May I introduce you to ring species.
When species encounter a natural obstacle it can't get over or through, it tends to go around it. Giant mountains, valleys, you name it. For our example, lets use Gulls.
The gulls are far north somewhere in Siberia. They can?t go further north, do to the frigid climate. However, the gulls can spread east and west, finding new food resources and nesting sights. For a while, this process only appears of caused only minor local variations. Maybe the colors are a bit different, some of the meals change, but all the gulls can mate with any other gull that is flying range.
Millions of years later, the gulls has spread entirely around the North pole, one making a trip across the Atlantic to Britain, while the rest have settled in Sweden. So, some of the British gulls fly to Sweden, the species has come full circle. However, when spring comes, cross mating happens, there are no eggs from the unions of these gulls. It appears they are no longer the same species.
The British gulls can still successfully mate with the Canadian gulls, the Canadians can still breed with the ones in Alaska, those can mate with the gulls in Siberia, who can have sex with the birds in Moscow, who can still create eggs with the Swedish gulls.
But the British gulls are genetically distinct enough from the Swedish gulls that they can no longer mate.
This is what happened to the Herring gulls, very clear evidence for evolution. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
Omniscience plus omnipotence precludes choice. God created everything, and knows how each and every action will lead. God knows what will cause every person to choose right or wrong, all the circumstances and conditions that lead to that choice. Every little niggling issue in a person's life, every glint of sun light in their eye, every movement of an animal that causes the car crash that made them late for work, every gene in their body which determines who they are, who they will be, what advantages and disadvantages they will have in life. Some people are born tall, into prosperity, where making the "moral" choice is easy.discrider said:
Then you have those borns in horrible conditions. Growth stunted because of starvation, being fed lies daily, made to think horrible things are good. Take Shin Dong-hyuk, writer of Escape From Camp 14, who was kept in the North Korean Interment camp, camp 14. The guy was born into prison. Interment is a North Korea practice where enemies of the state, plus three generations of their families, are sent to concentration camps for life. There are people living in their camps for a single grandparent supporting the South during the Korean war. To say the conditions in the camp are horrid does not even begin to cover things.
Back on topic, Shin was taught that the Kims are gods, that their imprisonment was just, and he should put the state above everything else. When Shin was 14, he turned his mother in for just talking about escaping. Shin felt it was just at the time, having been told that escaping was morally wrong and he had seen the consequences of the family members who didn't tell on attempted escapees. Shin didn't escape from the camp not because of the daily torture, the eight months he was in solitary confinement (imagine not being able to stand, and only getting to move your knees when you get your daily torture), but because Shin wanted food. Only after leaving North Korea and it's insane double think did he find some sane morals to follow.
Actually, only omniscience precludes choice. If you can predict the future perfectly then other people cannot act to change it, because you've already predicted how they will react to any information you feed them (and have already predicted and cannot necessarily change what information you feed them.Not G. Ivingname said:
But this can be resolved if omniscience grants not perfect predictions of the future, but a complete set of all perfect predictions for all futures based on how each person within the prediction chooses to act. It makes prophecy trickier, but not necessarily impossible so long as whatever plan you put in place or whatever direction you want to make history take can be made possible and adapted to every single choice of every single individual.
This is unfortunate to say the least, but it is necessary to allow the people who are in charge to face the consequences of their actions. People have to be accountable for what they do under their own power. Which is why Shin can't and shouldn't be held accountable for turning in his own parents.Not G. Ivingname said:
That's fine.Master of the Skies said:
That's not. If you want to look at it as a different kind of omnipotence fine. Or as a specific kind ok. But this expatiation is just self contradictory. I mean he clearly can't make a rock he can't lift, therefor not omnipotent. Or at least no that kind.Hafrael said:
Why is this a constant issue in America (so it seems to me)? Most religious people in Western Europe wouldn't deny evolution and still have no problem with being religious.
But, since you would know everything, you would know which of those predictions would come TRUE. You would also know all other possible consequences, but which ones would be picked. Unless the universe works on principles of "divides into multiple universes for all possible scenarios," (which has all kinds of theological problems, since everyone would both go to Hell and Heaven) your version of omniscience is not "knowing everything."discrider said:
Still does not answer the question. Why are only some people forced to face these consequences? What about all the other people in camp 14 that never escaped?
Why did Shin suffer so he could learn to be better, while I have lived a good life and just learned to be good from the beginning?
When people phrase it "supporting evolution" it seems you are advocating giving a hand to evolution by killing undesirables before they reproduce. I know it doesn't mean that, but I still think it whenever the phrase is used.
I'll just put this out here- I have never actually seen evidence for evolution. People say it's there, but I've never seen a credible source prove it. I've only heard people say that there is most definitely some evidence somewhere.
Personally, I don't really care either way. I'm an agnostic but as I said I've seen nothing to show me evolution is real. Also, I couldn't give a shit. What we were like in the past doesn't matter to me- it's the future I care about, because it's the future I can change and experience myself. I'll leave with a quote.
'Those who look to the past or present are certain to miss the future' JFK.
Personally, I don't really care either way. I'm an agnostic but as I said I've seen nothing to show me evolution is real. Also, I couldn't give a shit. What we were like in the past doesn't matter to me- it's the future I care about, because it's the future I can change and experience myself. I'll leave with a quote.
'Those who look to the past or present are certain to miss the future' JFK.
Here's a good place to start:Tom_green_day said:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01
Evolution is an ongoing process, which means it's not just about the past or present, but the future as well. And it is pretty dang important for out future, although unless you're in a relevant field (say, medicine) you don't really need to have an understanding of it. Kinda like chemistry--definitely important, but it's ok if some of us are ignorant of it. Can't know everything after all.
EDIT: Sorry for the massive post. Tendency to go long is another reason I generally avoid these. It's basically two sections, the first section basically gives my position, the second section is why I think the argument over evolution is generally harmful and why OP is a terrible person for starting it. (Okay, only one of these things)
---------------
I really don't intend to get drawn into a major discussion here; I've had enough of these arguments in the past, and I prefer to have these conversations in smaller settings where there's sometimes some meaningful dialog rather than the shouting matches that sometimes occur in forums. (Haven't read the last 17 pages to see if that's the case here)
As a Christian, I'm not inherently opposed to the scientific theory of Evolution, the idea that humankind may have come to exist through a series of genetic mutations selected by the process of natural selection, etc.
The key word in that sentence, though, is "scientific". I do take issue with the naturalistic materialist philosophy that is often bundled part-and-parcel with the theory of Evolution: that a direct consequence of the theory of evolution is that God had nothing to do with it. "Evolution vs. Creation" is a false dichotomy, as many Christians believe in "Creation through Evolution", that evolution happened, but that the process was designed, started, and directed by the hand of God.
The best analogy for this that I've heard is the "pie" model vs. the "cake" model, that many people view the world as a pie, and they're trying to divide it up: "oh, this piece has a natural explanation", "oh, this piece has a supernatural explanation". (Or, more often, they're trying to have the whole pie) But a better model is that of a cake, where natural and supernatural are layered on top of each other. Understanding the natural aspects of this world doesn't need conflict with the supernatural aspects, and only taken together do you get the whole picture.
(If your rebuttal to any or all this is "But determinism!" then, one, props to you for knowing your philosophy, but secondly, it's exactly that. Philosophy. Not science. If you can scientifically prove determinism, you should be sharing this with the Nobel Prize committee, not the Escapist forums. And, for that matter, even determinism isn't incompatible with the idea of God, just ask a Calvinist.)
------------------------
But really, the whole question of Evolution is just too drawn out for both sides. It really isn't that important. The core of Christian belief doesn't rest in the first two chapters of Genesis; it's in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Maybe evolution happened, maybe it didn't. The net impact of that question on my faith in God? Not much. The official Catholic position on evolution, I understand is something like "It probably happened. Maybe" and they haven't imploded yet.
And from the side of science, it's unhealthy too. Trying to make the question of evolution into an argument against religion isn't exactly healthy for science either. For one, it's made the scientific community extremely defensive of evolution in a way that they shouldn't be. It gets put on a pedestal of "you can't question this, because you'll be giving ground to THE ENEMY", which is a position that no scientific theory should be in.
I'm not saying evolution doesn't have evidence, but I will say it doesn't have as much evidence as, say, Newtonian Physics. Imagine the outcry the scientific community would have made if the religious community decided that we didn't believe in Newtonian Physics a hundred or so years ago. It would have been insane. And then, this guy Einstein would have shown up questioning the whole thing, he'd have had his funding revoked faster than you can say "Schrödinger's cat". (Which, for me is a relatively long time, but you get the point)
Yes, I'm slightly mangling my presentation of physics (we'll just call it artistic license), but the point is, no theory deserves to be beyond question, not in the way that evolution is. The documentary Dispelled does a good job showing just how open the scientific community isn't to normal scientific inquiry on this issue.
Okay. Cutting myself off here. Two giant walls of text is enough. (I try to intersperse some bad puns here and there to make it bearable) Feel free to message me, if you have a question you really want to hear an answer to. Anyways, thank you for reading, if you did. If not, and you're the sort of person who just jumps to the last sentence of a post: hello!
---------------
I really don't intend to get drawn into a major discussion here; I've had enough of these arguments in the past, and I prefer to have these conversations in smaller settings where there's sometimes some meaningful dialog rather than the shouting matches that sometimes occur in forums. (Haven't read the last 17 pages to see if that's the case here)
As a Christian, I'm not inherently opposed to the scientific theory of Evolution, the idea that humankind may have come to exist through a series of genetic mutations selected by the process of natural selection, etc.
The key word in that sentence, though, is "scientific". I do take issue with the naturalistic materialist philosophy that is often bundled part-and-parcel with the theory of Evolution: that a direct consequence of the theory of evolution is that God had nothing to do with it. "Evolution vs. Creation" is a false dichotomy, as many Christians believe in "Creation through Evolution", that evolution happened, but that the process was designed, started, and directed by the hand of God.
The best analogy for this that I've heard is the "pie" model vs. the "cake" model, that many people view the world as a pie, and they're trying to divide it up: "oh, this piece has a natural explanation", "oh, this piece has a supernatural explanation". (Or, more often, they're trying to have the whole pie) But a better model is that of a cake, where natural and supernatural are layered on top of each other. Understanding the natural aspects of this world doesn't need conflict with the supernatural aspects, and only taken together do you get the whole picture.
(If your rebuttal to any or all this is "But determinism!" then, one, props to you for knowing your philosophy, but secondly, it's exactly that. Philosophy. Not science. If you can scientifically prove determinism, you should be sharing this with the Nobel Prize committee, not the Escapist forums. And, for that matter, even determinism isn't incompatible with the idea of God, just ask a Calvinist.)
------------------------
But really, the whole question of Evolution is just too drawn out for both sides. It really isn't that important. The core of Christian belief doesn't rest in the first two chapters of Genesis; it's in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Maybe evolution happened, maybe it didn't. The net impact of that question on my faith in God? Not much. The official Catholic position on evolution, I understand is something like "It probably happened. Maybe" and they haven't imploded yet.
And from the side of science, it's unhealthy too. Trying to make the question of evolution into an argument against religion isn't exactly healthy for science either. For one, it's made the scientific community extremely defensive of evolution in a way that they shouldn't be. It gets put on a pedestal of "you can't question this, because you'll be giving ground to THE ENEMY", which is a position that no scientific theory should be in.
I'm not saying evolution doesn't have evidence, but I will say it doesn't have as much evidence as, say, Newtonian Physics. Imagine the outcry the scientific community would have made if the religious community decided that we didn't believe in Newtonian Physics a hundred or so years ago. It would have been insane. And then, this guy Einstein would have shown up questioning the whole thing, he'd have had his funding revoked faster than you can say "Schrödinger's cat". (Which, for me is a relatively long time, but you get the point)
Yes, I'm slightly mangling my presentation of physics (we'll just call it artistic license), but the point is, no theory deserves to be beyond question, not in the way that evolution is. The documentary Dispelled does a good job showing just how open the scientific community isn't to normal scientific inquiry on this issue.
Okay. Cutting myself off here. Two giant walls of text is enough. (I try to intersperse some bad puns here and there to make it bearable) Feel free to message me, if you have a question you really want to hear an answer to. Anyways, thank you for reading, if you did. If not, and you're the sort of person who just jumps to the last sentence of a post: hello!
I take it you haven't looked very hard. Try "Evolution: Triumph of an Idea". It's a university-level textbook, and outlines the evidence pretty well.Tom_green_day said:
Tell that to the people who's lives are saved every year by flu vaccines. Or the entire field of agriculture. Or animal husbandry in general. If global warming is to be solved, it will be solved via a deep understanding of evolutionary theory.Retsam19 said:
Said by someone who's obviously never studied it. We have literally tons of evidence--we don't know how many tons, in fact, because no one has ever bothered to measure the weight of the fossils.
Have you ever heard of de Vries' primroses? If not, I suggest you look into them. They're quite facinating--from a historic perspective, a scientific perspective, and as an aid in understanding the actual history of evolutionary theory.
See, I'm not sure what to make about this. My post wasn't about the terms or mechanics of evolution. I literally had a single sentence summarizing evolution, and it ended with "etc". In fact, I deliberately avoided any more than that single sentence because I was trying to avoid your sort of reply of "You obviously don't understand evolution, let me explain the technical details to you again, until you, by sheer force of repetition see the light and decide that we're right" (The cynicism isn't directed at your post which was quite polite, honestly, but I've just seen many that aren't so much)Semes said:
My entire point was that it's not the technical issues of evolution that give me trouble. It's the philosophical baggage that is so constantly packaged with evolution that I'm opposed to. It's not the natural selection and breeding that I have problem with, it's materialism and naturalism, which are not part of the scientific theory of evolution.
Uhh, my first point wasn't saying that evolution has no application. I said it didn't deserve as much controversy, (and in fact, I was even speaking at the time about religious implications of evolution). I wasn't saying "Scientists should stop believing evolution". But, why the crusade? Why is there such an effort to get every last person in this country to acknowledge evolution as the one true path to biological-origins-of-man enlightenment? Does it really matter what Joe the Accountant might be *gasp* wrong about a scientific theory?Dinwatr said:
(And I suppose I'm just supposed to ignore that the practice of vaccination is considerably older than the theory of evolution. And for that matter that animal husbandry have been going on for about 10000 years now, without needing to believe that humans evolved. And I honestly don't want to ask about how understanding the origin of man will help us to deal with climate patterns)
The ridiculousness of your statement that there is more evidence for Evolution than there is for Newtonian Physics speaks for itself. But here, I'll help. Find a heavy object; Hold it out in front of you; Let go. Congratulations, you've just generated more evidence for Newtonian Physics! (And probably annoyed everyone around you and possibly below you, you jerk)
But, good job completely taking parts of my post out of context in order to try to win the argument and make me look bad. Gold star for you.
--------------
But... yeah. This is pretty much why I stay out of these arguments. I can post literally anything about my opinion on evolution, and if it's not "I agree with evolution" the response will be "You don't understand evolution, here let me explain it to you more." It get tired of "You disagree with me, you must be ignorant." Honestly, it's condescending, frustrating, and simply not true. Not everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant.