Since The Christian Delusion has been shown to be a massive flop, John Loftus isn't trying to give actual arguments anymore, but is, instead, appealing to emotions with pictures. Dr. Seuss atheology.
If his video shows that there's an unanswerable problem of evil for the theist, then this video is just as good for showing that there's an unanswerable problem of good for the Darwinian.
Pass me a hanky, John!
This looks like the lion has capacity for memory and positive emotion, although it may be easy to be given to anthropomorphizing.
ReplyDeleteThat shirtless guy walking into the scene makes me suspicious that it's a more controlled environment than they are letting on. The basic storyline may be true enough though.
ReplyDeleteIf that lion was hungry enough, those friends of his may have been dinner. And he surely ay have felt guilty afterwards, and sorrowfully repented.
ReplyDelete"Can a perfectly good God be reconciled with this amount of suffering? (Not a chance!)."
How about this suffereing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxJo3w5Ur8Y&feature=related
I think a good God can be reconciled with suffering. Animals experience God's common grace not as a response to their demerit but still without deserving it. You cannot deserve to be created and placed on this earth and have all your needs met by God. God is never obligated to be merciful to anything He has created. Grace being unmerited favor is never owed. If God witholds His grace and allows suffering He does nothing wrong. Not only because grace is never owed but because He has morally sufficient reasons for witholding grace and allowing suffering. He's the Creator we are the creation. He has rights and prerogatives that His creation doesn't.
ReplyDeleteComment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Ed, I have no clue as to the relevance of your post.
ReplyDeleteAs for "vegetarianism" before the fall, have you read this:
http://www.upper-register.com/papers/animal_death_before_fall.html
And, I, for one, understand why atheists want the rest of us to be vegetarians: they want to bring us down to their intellectual level:
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6549.html
I know some atheists pride themselves on their intellect. They should thank God he allowed and made humans able to eat meat.
Furthermore, this scientist says meat eating was *essential* to human survival:
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html
Now, I understand that John Loftus says God should have just made us plants with brains, but who takes that guy seriously?
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Ed,
ReplyDelete"1) There is no "Darwinian" Problem of either Good or Evil. Primates display both aggression and sociability. Humans likewise."
Good, that's what we argued in TID, glad you agree.
"2) I'm not a vegetarian. But if you read my post you can see that humans are omnivores, and we can get along by eating a higher percentage of plant protein than obligate carnivores. "
Does Loftus know of your moral failing?
"OBSERVATION: The author is admitting t hat God is feeding some parts of his creation to other parts. How exactly does that prove God's creation is "good?"
I guess you'd have to justify the presupposition that that's bad.
Also, this post answers Loftus at his own level. Since you disagree with Loftus, the post wasn't meant to be directed at you.
Comment has been blocked.
Ed,
ReplyDeleteAs a Calvinist I affirm that whatsoever happens is decreed by God, so you can spare me the lengthy posts.
Ed,
ReplyDeleteHere's the deal. You will post arguments or I'll simply delete your bloviations. I don't have time for your lengthy posts that read the bible pedantically and woddenly literal in all places minus any actual arguments (hint: questions are not arguments) or exegesis (hint: quoting a verse isn't exegesis).
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
"As a Calvinist are you saying that whatever is, is divinely decreed for the good of God?" -Edward
ReplyDeleteI'd like to answer that as a Calvinist, if that's alright.
"And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." Romans 8:28
God cursed the earth. This is why a monitor lizard grabs a deer's hind leg with it's jaws, and the dear dies a painful death. Or chimpazees herd monkeys into a trap, and then rip their arms out of their sockets and eat them.
This world is cursed my friend.
But God, is going to make all things new. In fact Christ began the process when He said on the Cross, "It is Finished!"
Hope you will come to Christ, the One who died, and rose from the dead, as Dr. Luke tells us in his 2nd letter:
"In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. He presented himself ALIVE to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God."
d,
ReplyDeleteI really can't understand your obsession. You act just like the religious are supposed to act, per TCD chs 1-3. Take a breath and make one comment, or is the shotgun method supposed to halt debate?
"1) I did not agree. I merely stated that in a Darwinian cosmos there is no such problem, but in a theistic cosmos, Darwinism DOES pose questions."
That's the problem with you, Ed, you "state" rather than argue.
I've already responded to Loftus's chapter, so it's not as if you can simply appeal to these kinds of things without arguing down the responses.
"2) "Does Loftus know of your moral failing?" See reply above."
I don't see where you've linked to your differences with PETA Loftus.
"I guess you'd have to justify the presupposition that that's bad." Paul, "bad" is a more slippery word than "causing suffering."
Loftus chose to phrase his argument in terms of "evil." So again you're not dealing with the context of dialogue this post was presented in.
I also don't think pain is intrinsically evil.
I also think suffering cannot be reduced to c-fibers firing. In fact, I don't see how you can account for pain at all; that is, if you're a physicalist about the mind.
"4) So far as addressing John at his own level, I don't see that you have done that. His video illustrated the universality of animal suffering. Your video demonstrated the isolated case of a lion cub raised by two loving human beings, a cub that grew up and later was released into the jungle to eat other animals.
There's many more cases than this one. Want to come over to my house, grab a beer, and watch my dog lick my face?
Anyway, Loftus's argument says that our entire world should be like the one in the video. We should all live forever, with no pain, sinning as we please, doing whatever we want to, never eating anything, and frolicking in the tall grass with animals. My video presented a slice of that, that's a slice Loftus can't account for. Moreover, as you've admitted, Darwinism cannot underwrite what we all call good about the video. If all the "good" stuff can be given your Darwinist interpretation, then what i said in my chapter is true: there's no evidence that would convince Loftus. If we lived in a world where everyone frolicked with animals as in the video, Loftus would complain about that too.
In other words you left out the fact that Christian the lion's pride suffered many setbacks: Katania was possibly devoured by crocodiles at a watering hole
I left out just as much as Loftus did.
"As a Calvinist are you saying that whatever is, is divinely decreed for the good of God?
Divinely decreed? Yes. "For the good of God," I don't even know what that means.
" This is the best of all possible worlds that God hast decreed?
No, I don't even think there is "a best of all possible worlds."
The rest of your comment was simply more of your ignorant rantings and attempts to box me into the fragile faith you had. Your faith was fragile from the get go, just waiting (hoping?) for someone to come and knock it down. You don't bother to quote me, you don't bother to understand my position, you don't bother to interact with my arguments, you don't bother to present serious arguments yourself, so why do you bother at all?