Debating an Atheist

[TrumanSmith]

Also- if you want to know more reasons why evolution destroys Christianity, just see any young earth or old earth creationist ministry website; they'll be happy to explain it. They see evolution as a grave threat to theology; and I agree with them. That's why I left. I was also an evolutionary creationist before leaving the faith, but I felt there was no decent reasonable answers for integrating evolution into theology. Evolution breaks theology.

As long as you say "I don't know" or "evolution doesn't matter" then of course there will be no ramifications. It is like when a spouse cheats on another, and a friend tells the non-cheating spouse, there could be no ramifications if the non-cheating spouse says "I don't know and I don't care; it doesn't matter." If you learn enough to take a position, very real consequences in theology will come about. Until then, there are no consequences to deal with.

[TrumanSmith]

I am very confident that it will not matter to you, Truman, but just so you're aware, David Hull was a philosopher.

CThomas

Maybe so. I just saw it and did a quick cut/paste. I did it because I agreed with the content and thought that it made a good point.

[mattrose]

You need to do deeper thinking.

Rest assured, I will continue to think as deeply as God grants me for the rest of my life.

I only ask the same of you. One of the potential dangers of publishing a book is that you can succumb to the temptation of changing your core value from seeking the truth to defending your truth. Whether one succumbs to such a temptation is largely dependent on their character. To be frank, since you are choosing to deny the very source of character, you are more liable to this temptation than genuine Christians who publish.

If theistic evolution, or even naturalism, turns out to be true... I am quite likely to eventually arrive at those conclusions b/c I have made the pursuit of truth paramount in my life. But if God is the Truth (and there are plenty of strong reasons to believe such is the case, especially the resurrection of Jesus Christ), then the more I pursue truth, the closer I will get to God.

But your case is somewhat different. In denying God, you are cutting yourself off from the source of truth. All your pursuits from this point on are quite possibly departures further and further away from the truth. You will likely find your position becoming more and more cemented... but your life becoming emptier and emptier. I am not trying to be rude. You are welcome to roll your eyes and/or comment back that I'm an idiot. Perhaps some day I'll see the 'light' that you have seen.

But maybe, just maybe, that 'someday' will actually find you thinking back over the past decade or so and feeling lost, alone, afraid, misguided, empty, etc. Maybe you'll have a moment where you think that your denial of God was actually a mistake. I believe that in that moment, God will be speaking to you and knocking on the door of your heart. And, being the gentleman that God is, He will allow you to make a choice at that time, once again, whether to turn toward Him or continue down the road you are on. I genuinely hope you choose the former.

So I'll watch the videos I said I'll watch. I'll continue to think through this issue of the relationship b/w faith and science. I'll continue to pursue the truth on all matters. But I hope you will do the same. You asked me to think more deeply about science. I do desire to get more details on the fields discussed in this thread. But you need to think more deeply about Christianity. Basically all of your statements about Christianity in this thread show an incredibly shallow amount of thinking in terms of theology.

[paulespino]

Matt wrote:

But your case is somewhat different. In denying God, you are cutting yourself off from the source of truth. All your pursuits from this point on are quite possibly departures further and further away from the truth. You will likely find your position becoming more and more cemented... but your life becoming emptier and emptier. I am not trying to be rude. You are welcome to roll your eyes and/or comment back that I'm an idiot. Perhaps some day I'll see the 'light' that you have seen.

But maybe, just maybe, that 'someday' will actually find you thinking back over the past decade or so and feeling lost, alone, afraid, misguided, empty, etc. Maybe you'll have a moment where you think that your denial of God was actually a mistake. I believe that in that moment, God will be speaking to you and knocking on the door of your heart. And, being the gentleman that God is, He will allow you to make a choice at that time, once again, whether to turn toward Him or continue down the road you are on. I genuinely hope you choose the former.

So I'll watch the videos I said I'll watch. I'll continue to think through this issue of the relationship b/w faith and science. I'll continue to pursue the truth on all matters. But I hope you will do the same. You asked me to think more deeply about science. I do desire to get more details on the fields discussed in this thread. But you need to think more deeply about Christianity. Basically all of your statements about Christianity in this thread show an incredibly shallow amount of thinking in terms of theology.

Matt, you remind me of this verse

Matthew 12:31 NKJV

31 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. 

[steve7150]

Also- if you want to know more reasons why evolution destroys Christianity, just see any young earth or old earth creationist ministry website; they'll be happy to explain it. They see evolution as a grave threat to theology; and I agree with them. That's why I left. I was also an evolutionary creationist before leaving the faith, but I felt there was no decent reasonable answers for integrating evolution into theology. Evolution breaks theology.







It's exactly the same argument as "if God is good why is there so much evil in the world"? You don't need evolution to find evil it's right in front of you. The bible calls this age "this present evil age" and is very open about all the evil around us. Trying to classify evolution as some type of special case of evil is simply a dead end. Previously i responded to this topic and naturally you didn't engage and bopped on to another complaint about God. When i responded to your trinity complaint you once again didn't respond and bopped on to yet another complaint about God.
As far as i see, underneath your appearance of scientific impartiality is an emotional dislike of the God of the bible.

[TrumanSmith]

You don't need evolution to find evil it's right in front of you.

The traditional "problem of evil" is a case against the so-called all-loving and all-good god. It is like accusing a man of a double murder.

Adding evolution to the case is like now accusing the perpetrator of being a mass-murderer (rather than just a double-murderer).

So yes, while it doesn't change the 'nature' of the charge, it dramatically changes the 'magnitude' of it. It is the difference between a typical murderer sitting in prison and Hitler.

[steve7150]

The traditional "problem of evil" is a case against the so-called all-loving and all-good god. It is like accusing a man of a double murder.

Adding evolution to the case is like now accusing the perpetrator of being a mass-murderer (rather than just a double-murderer).

So yes, while it doesn't change the 'nature' of the charge, it dramatically changes the 'magnitude' of it. It is the difference between a typical murderer sitting in prison and Hitler.
..........
Truman Smith, author of "Modern Science and Philosophy Destroys Christian Theology"








The magnitude of evil is immense whether evolution is included or not. I can't imagine anything worse then what Hitler did which not only included murder but by gassing people to death he added immeasurable suffering to the process.
Yet the whole cycle of life incorporates living things eating other living things just for survival so one can ask if this was necessary. I also consider that there is great love in this world , there is great beauty and innumerable other inspiring positive things in this world. I also wonder if we would appreciate great love and great beauty if we had nothing to contrast it with. I also note that with the mix of evil verses love and goodness in this world very few people choose to check out from this life even though it's not that difficult to do so.
Lastly the bible tells me this "present evil age" is temporal and will pass and that in the eternal state there will be no more tears, and this gives me hope.

[jriccitelli]

I have not kept up on this thread, and I am watching Venemas videos, but I had to (of course) make a quick note.
The vids still only imply similarity between parts, note the similarity of all things being made of atoms, and that removing one proton from an atom creates an entirely (in most all cases) different atom. Removing one or more digits in a code can have insignificant results, and or incredibly different results, but it has to happen intelligently to get a ‘positive’ result, and that factor multiplies Exponentially with every change in the code.
Note also, even if God were evil and mean and created us, nevertheless He created us, it is no argument against there being a designer or creator. I often point out to Christians that God was making a point with the lion bear and Tyrannosaurus Rex.
The point is life is short and this is not the garden of Eden, sorry, but man sinned and continues to do so.

[mattrose]

Truman,

I had some time today and I watched your hour long discussion with Fazale Rana.

I have not been impressed with your part in the debates with Steve or Rask, but I thought you came off much better on this video. Of course, I think Dr. Rana made some excellent points and was more persuasive, but I enjoyed the conversation and thank-you for putting together a show like that.

To summarize, I think Dr. Rana made some very interesting points

1. Amongst his bio-chem colleagues, there is more skepticism about full-Darwinism than there is in public.
2. Soft-methodological-naturalism is a better approach b/c it allows the evidence to point toward intelligence rather than banning that possibility from the realm of discussion. Simultaneously, it resists getting to an ID solution to rapidly.
3. God of the gaps is based on ignorance. The ID movement is largely based on new knowledge.
4. Belief in God is not a 'science-stopper' because we should want to know God's ways and because we can utilize His designs to be creative ourselves. In other words, we are highly motivated to do science in the Christian worldview.

It was too bad you ran out of time... b/c I would have liked you to give a fuller answer to his question on free will. I don't see how, ultimately, you don't consider it an illusory concept. It's one thing to say that a 'meat-based-computer' can make decisions, but it's another thing to say it is FREE to make the decisions that it makes. Free will is not simply about making a decision... it is about the real possibility of making a different decision.

[TrumanSmith]

RE:"3. God of the gaps is based on ignorance. The ID movement is largely based on new knowledge."

No- it is still god of the gaps, ID is still "no one knows therefore god dun it." No ones knows...yet. Science seeks for, and finds, answers.

RE: "4. Belief in God is not a 'science-stopper' because we should want to know God's ways and because we can utilize His designs to be creative ourselves. In other words, we are highly motivated to do science in the Christian worldview."

If a scientist really believed in special creation rather than evolution, then it would be stupid and frustrating to look for naturalistic scientific answers for questions that have miracles as the true cause. Science is defined as 'methodology naturalism' because only natural answers are sought, and found.