Evolution, Love, & the Problem of Evil | Doug Wilson
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ต.ค. 2024
- In this episode of Blog & Mablog, Pastor Doug Wilson talks about evolution, a certain Christian Biology curriculum, and the problem of evil.
Enjoying this video? Check out Doug's book "Rules for Reformers" today!
canonpress.com...
Blog and Mablog is presented by Canon Press.
TRUTH! I appreciate you tackling this topic to show us how it's done. I was baptized in Darwinism as most of my generation was government educated and post conversion I tried to shove my evolution into my Bible. It was sticking out in lots of places but I carried it around like that for years because the pulpit and the people of God never challenged it. Then I started teaching my kids at home and most of the curriculum was young earth. Conflicted and a little embarrassed for these ignorant Christian text book writers, I decided to take my crumpled evolution out, smooth it out so that it would fit properly into my Bible. Turns out that they (evolution and the Bible) don't go together because they both claim to know where we came from, why we're here and where we're going. Evolution was a little too big for it's britches. But, as evolution would not bow to the Lord Jesus and acknowledge His kingship, His authority of His creation, I threw that wrinkled mess in the trash. Many thanks to the pastors with courage who preached the truth and showed me that there is only one origin story that is to be believed. "Science" needs to sit down and remember it's place: theology is the mother of all sciences because to study the world IS to study the creator of it. To divorce the two is foolishness at best and will result in a fractured, incomplete understanding that will create a chasm that can eventually erode your faith. And if not yours, that is probably built on a Judeo-Christian worldview that says you matter, certainly your kids because they don't have a solid foundation. Be careful and take out your evolution and see if it's telling the truth. We've bought a bag of lies. And it's not benign. Telling kids they're evolved goo with thumbs that came from nothing, mean nothing and are going nowhere is corrosive. They don't have enough Judeo-Christian heritage to borrow to know that it's not true and they are smart enough to figure out that means it doesn't matter what they do. So they are between a rock and a hard place: internally their sin that they're enslaved to as sons and daughters of Adam craves perversion and they're external education tells them nothing matters. Behold the results. Our children are dying. In frenzied desperation, they try to "recreate" themselves on social media; by mutilating their genitalia and when that runs it's course and they realize they aren't actually the authors of their lives, they hurt themselves and others. If you have believed the lies of evolution: Repent and come to Christ. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
John 1:2-3 NASB
In the beginning, GOD made the heavens and the earth. Gen 1:1
It's either Christ or chaos.
@moken7 The truth sets you free from the law of sin and death. I believe that raising my kids to believe God and take Him at His word will save them both now and eternally. I'm curious, are you saying that God won't provide or protect them if they follow and believe Him? That doesn't make any sense.
KT,.....Just curious, did you also throw out all the 100% unbiblical spinning baal (ball) earth nonsense as well? The Bible clearly tell us that the earth is stationary and flat. Any belief (religion) other than what the Bible tells us is another religion from that of the Bibles religion.
The Bible clearly tells us that God created mankind in one day, the earth is stationary and flat, there is no universe, dinosaurs, or billions of years. That belief is all a 100% antigod/antibible/antichrist religion. It is the religion of the entire God hating world, as well as the religion of the entire Godless church that is not of God, but is in fact of the Godless world. It is called scientism. A rejection of God and the truth of his word, and a belief in the fables of God hating mankind.
The Reverend Wilson says this so well, so logically, so Biblically, that only a seminary professor could misunderstand it... ;-)
whoa maaaaan
Haaarrsh. Nicely put.
Very well said! 🙏
Very good!
I taught from the Novare Earth Science textbook. It was excellent. I was anxiously awaiting the biology book when I moved to another school.
I’m hooked excellent exposure
The very first sin on record was, “has God said?” The devil has been questioning God’s Word since the beginning. It’s no different now.
What about saying, "... - is true", is that sinful (making truth claims while not being God)?
@@BornOnThursday if God hasn’t made truth interpretable and obvious to us, then we really have no business talking to one another. This very sentence relies on truth. If we cannot point to an infallible source of truth, we’re ultimately forced to accept mysticism or subjectivism, and both of which make intelligibility impossible, not only destroying the sensibility to speak, but also destroying the meaning behind it.
Truth is proven by the impossibility of the contrary. To say that nothing is true is a self refuting statement. Thus, it must be the case that something is true. Now the question is “what is the infallible standard of truth?” Because it certainly isn’t me. That’s where the Bible comes in. Out of all the ancient literature in the world, the Bible is by far the best candidate for being the infallible standard of truth, and it just so happens to claim that it is. This is so obviously the case, making it foolish to argue otherwise. Therefore, we as intelligible beings MUST refer to that standard in order to determine what is true and what is false.
@@BornOnThursday the short answer: So long as our truth claims correspond with God’s infallible revelation, then no it’s not a sin. Because repeating God’s words is not only acceptable, it’s commanded of us.
I would only disagree in that the first Sin known was the pride of lucifer saying "I am equal to you" before his fall, it was also the first lie, a perfect self deception.
Christ conquered death. Theistic evos (Biologos etc.) have to uphold that he was solving a problem he created independently of human sin, and called ‘very good’.
Why did it take him 3 days? It is soooo lame. Why did he have to sacrifice himself to forgive everyone? It doesn't make sense. Also, it wasn't a sacrifice at all. He is, supposedly, an all powerful being. He didn't lose anything.
To sacrifice you must truly lose something.
The christian story is a farce. Very poor story telling. Focus on, story.
@@Lombokstrait1 This is a meme response.
@@Lombokstrait1 Admit it, mocker, you like the smell of your own farce!
Good point, Pete
Natural death in a pre-sin age can be a good thing. Yes, the wages of sin is death in many cases, such as God flooding a wicked earth, or taking David's newborn son for his sin with Bathsheba; but death is not always a 'problem.' Can God not create the cycle of life and death and still call it good? Consider the role of predators and prey. Death feeds hungry mouths , it keeps plant life and prey populations in check, it allows for new life where the old life has fallen, etc. Pinning Adam and Eve with the blame of illness, predation, and death is just that: Pinning blame on somebody for 'ruining things for the rest of us.'
Mankind was (likely) never physically immortal. 'This is a popular idea, but not clear in the Biblical text. The first humans are described as “very good” and pleasing to God (Gen. 1:30-31), but not as perfect or with superhuman abilities. Also, consider the Tree of Life. God planted this tree in the garden before the fall (Gen. 2:9) and it gives immortality to the one who eats it (Gen. 3:22). If God created humans as immortal, what was the purpose of the Tree of Life? It would only be needed if humans were mortal to begin with.'
How do you find the video version of this full video on the cannon app??? I can only find the audio
I see no point in debating evolution. It is a religious argument, mostly on the side of the people that religiously believe that they are not religious. You cannot hold a discussion based on the data. I generally debate to understand and that is not possible with evolutionary dogma.
All religions have a creation myth, and evolution is the atheist version.
I find just asking questions pointing at contradictions helps.
It's all about faith, certainly. For the godless and the christian. They both want to play around with the world and culture and appear to not look like a freak when it comes to belief in God
@moken7 real science is observed. That's what science is. Materialistic darwinism is religious. They claim to know how things came to be without being there, how they died without being there, when they died without being there and WHAT IT MEANS. They claim no spiritual life or supernatural without provided 'evidence' to the contrary. They claim no meaning to existing at all. Just grab all you can for as long as you can and if you get in my way... I may hurt you.
I used to live it. No thanks. I chose Jesus Christ raised from the dead
@moken7 That is change. That is evolution in a micro sense. That is what I believe too. Wilson also. Most Christians who love Jesus and the truth.
Darwinism is not that at all. Please study your own worldview. Not only is darwinism a religion, it's a contradictory religion in and of itself. Further still most of it's adherents don't even know what it teaches.
MACRO evolution is the lie. That is not observable. Not repeatable. That is what science demands. Dogs breeding is not the same. Watch the debates between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. Look up OPERATIONAL SCIENCE, verses HISTORICAL SCIENCE.
If you are going to be believe something or say you do, then you should know it. I finally knew it myself and dug deeper and it's nothing short of fairy tales for adults who despise God.
Or as what Darwin himself called it, "The devil's gospel"
Good day
I just have one observation or question. We generally do not think off natural disaster or animals killing each other as good or bad morally. Why is pain in nature always morally bad or imply God is morally bad? Human beings are the only ones offered the Tree of Life as far as we know. Do humans have different rules as for the morality of causing pain? They were set in a garden. Why not just in the rest of the world? They were given plants to eat only and only killed after the moral fall. Does this imply something different for pain and morality for humans than the rest of creation?
My thoughts exactly. God demands blood sacrifices prior to Jesus’ death by this logic he was commanding his people to perform immoral acts in order to appease his wrath. Doesn’t make sense…
You: I just have one observation or question.
You: We generally do not think off natural disaster or animals killing each other as good or bad morally.
Me: Generally, and that's likely because many people focus on people, while fewer people broaden their scope. Some of those who aren't superstitious or theistic, but ask this question, likely understand why both events happen, but would likely prefer neither did.
You: Why is pain in nature always morally bad or imply God is morally bad?
Me: To put it better, replace “pain” with “unnecessary-” or “excessive-“ “-suffering", think child born with cancer.
Me: If I understand correctly, many who would say this implies the Christian, or some other monotheistic god, is morally bad, do so, because that god supposedly had the power, knowledge, and desire to avoid it, _but didn't._
You: Human beings are the only ones offered the Tree of Life as far as we know.
You: Do humans have different rules as for the morality of causing pain?
Me: More and more seem to be working against the right to cause others pain (or unnecessary/excessive suffering) as we learn more and more about how we behave and how we can correct the "morally bad" behaviors without resorting to pain.
You: They were set in a garden. Why not just in the rest of the world? They were given plants to eat only and only killed after the moral fall.
Me: There isn't much support that humans beings aren't, or weren't, omnivores, and so it's likely we always killed for food (technically, we are killing plants to eat them).
Me: Now in the tale, if humans didn't need to eat before the fall, then we would have seen a change over from no killing needed, or allowed, ever to needed and allowed, but that isn't the case.
You: Does this imply something different for pain and morality for humans than the rest of creation?
Me: In the tale, humans were given mastery over the plants and animals, so it would seem so.
I fwlt something was off with this video, then it hit me. There is no sweater vest or suit.
Interesting commentary. I always start with, looking around, “How did all this stuff get here? You can’t make something from nothing.” Simplistic, yes. But also true. The sun is burning, and has been for almost 6000 years by our count. How did it get there? God made things so complex and amazing in diversity that it couldn’t have just “happened.” And now that we know DNA is code, then who wrote it? Code doesn’t write itself.
Man continues to learn more about our university while continuing to get more dumb. “A fool say in his heart there is no God.”
You: Interesting commentary. I always start with, looking around, "How did all this stuff get here? You can't make something from nothing."
Me: Good question, and it is one that many have asked. The phrase in the second part works analytically, but always be sure to check what someone means whet they say “nothing”.
You: Simplistic, yes. But also true.
You: The sun is burning, and has been for almost 6000 years by our count.
Me: I googled the age of the sun (in our solar system), and the current estimate is 4.6 billion years, give or take a few. million years.
Me: Also, check this article,pretty interesting stuff: _www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-age-of-the-sun-and-the-earth/_
You: How did it get there?
Me: Similar to the first question, but more specific, so, good question.
You: God made things so complex and amazing in diversity that it couldn't have just “happened.”
Me: I would like to ask how you went from asking a perfectly good question about how stuff got here to asserting claims about a god while performing an argument from incredulity fallacy...
Me: Also, as we learn more about the universe (generally how stuff works within it), through deduction and induction, we try to work out models that could tackle the origin while still working within what we currently understand.
You: And now that we know DNA is code,
then who wrote it? Code doesn't write itself.
Me: At some point, someone used code as an analogy, but failed to consider the outcome, which is what we see here; a failure to understand how dna works, and how it doesn't require a “coder” or “writer” to exist as it does today.
You: Man continues to learn more about our university while continuing to get more dumb.
Me: Idk the stats, but if fewer people are engaging in formal, and informal, methods of education, that may have more to do with the accessibility of said education, and the societal or individual, pressures to seek, or improve one's, education.
Me: Also, I assume you meant “universe”, and not “university”.
You: “A fool say in his heart there is no God.”
Me: “A witty saying proves nothing.”
To think first off that Genesis is at all in any way meant to be a forensic account of creation is to already misunderstand the text
Can you explain?
@@drewcrawford394 Modern people read most anything that is said to be true as if it's a word for word retelling of an event. Even if a true story is delivered with a narrative flair, it's still expected to be just flavor for an otherwise certain account of things. This is not the context Genesis was originally written or read.
Man in his finite wisdom is always trying to rewrite the Bible and question God. God created everything in an orderly manner as laid out in Genesis. To believe otherwise is to doubt God, which is folly and sin.
JO,....Correct. Anyone that thinks that evolution, the spinning ball earth, a universe, dinosaurs, and the billions of years old timeframe has even the slightest possibility of being true has totally rejected the truth of the Bible and is in fact in the God hating worlds 100% false, manmade religion of scientism. The have nothing to do with Christianity, they are totally deceived.
@Loving one another ,....What you have presented here is 100% ungodly nonsense from a 100% ungodly man. There is nothing that disproves God, the Bible and Christianity.
You have only exposed how absolutely evil, blind, lost, and deceived you are, and have in fact actually proved the Bible (Christianity) to be true. But of course being totally blinded by God, you cannot see or understand it.
There is no such thing as freewill as it pertains to Christianity and salvation. There is only evil, ungodly people like you that deserve everything God lets happen to you, including eternal damnation (Gods wrath).
@@tonybasoni8443 please keep spreading flat earth.
@@eg4848 ,....Yes of course, spreading the flat earth is simple spreading the actual truth of the Bible. We are not going to hear any actual Biblical truth from the world, or the church, it only comes from the Bible.
Exodus 7:8 Then the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, 9 “When Pharaoh speaks to you, saying, ‘Show a miracle for yourselves,’ then you shall say to Aaron, ‘Take your rod and cast it before Pharaoh, and let it become a serpent.’ ” A scientist examining the rod would be able to estimate how old it was, the same scientist examining the snake would be able to estimate how old it was. The scientist would not say either were 1 minute old yet they were. Evidence of age does not disprove God's miracles nor prove his technique.
Your statement assumes that scientists can estimate the age of things. Carbon dating doesn’t work any more than masks work.
@@kurtnyuli9095 The size of the snake and rod suggest a minimum age that would exceed the sudden appearance of the snake.
@@joferg12 Did the scientist see the snake when it was alive? Was he there when the tree was planted that the rod was made of? If the answer is no to these questions then said scientist has no possible means of estimating the age of the snake or rod.
@@kurtnyuli9095 Sorry this has been confusing. What I was trying to convey was - if someone was there when these incidents happened with Aaron, and they used "scientific" reasoning, the size of the snake and the staff (and the rings in the wood) would suggest a certain age. Those ages would not be consistent with a snake that did not exist before the interaction between Aaron and the Egyptians. Or a staff that suddenly appeared from the snake, presuming it returned to being a staff. That is why they are miraculous (contra naturam). Our usual observations of the changes over time are suspended by miracles. To say that the world cannot be 6,000 years old because our assumptions of how things change over time tells us it is billions of years old is sensible if there are no miracles. I happen to believe the creation of the world, including life built from the instructions in DNA, was miraculous.
@moken7 you must admit apparent age does exist. How old is your brand-new kitchen table? Do you know the ages of the trees that were harvested to build it? How old is the windshield of your car? Not the glass, the silicon!
Even if the 'Big-Bang' were true, someone had to light the fuse!
And there are plenty that believe that. A Catholic priest first purposed the theory.
Not necessarily someone, but it would be interesting to know more about it, and to know its origin, if possible.
"science makes no truth claims" is a truth claim, but it's not a scientific one. No inconsistency
is that true?
@@ezassegai4793 yes.
@@DarthCalculus thats quite a claim
@@ezassegai4793 which claim do you mean?
A) "Science makes no truth claims"
I don't think *this* one is true, exactly;
B) "The statement in (A) is not scientific"
This is a statement *about* science, not *of* science;
C) "there's no inconsistency inherent in (A)"
This is a direct implication of (B)
Did that clear it up?
@@DarthCalculus lots of words but fact remains that science makes truth claims.
The interesting thing in my view is that the MORE science advances, the LESS likely evolution appears to have occurred. With the discovery of DNA-a biological code that could not in any way shape or form have emerged from the random interaction of molecules-the need for a designer is a mathematical necessity. There’s no way around that. There may be questions about whether the six days are literal 24 hours (the Bible explicitly says that God’s “day” is not like a human day, God being outside the space/time construct) but the fact that we are living in an unbelievably intricate designed creation is not only self evident but a mathematical certainty. We are living in a sort of “matrix” where the personal acceptance of the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the “red pill” and our only hope of escape out of the darkness of hell and into the heavenly light of truth. There’s no other way but through the blood of Jesus.
The young earth creationists never seem to mention that the Serpent was in the garden before the fall of Adam. The serpent of old fell in some distant past and was consigned to the same domain. There are many theological possibilities here ... but evil was there and God intended man,to confront that evil and overcome. The tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil existed in the middle of the Garden before the fall. The garden was good ... very good ... but death was there waiting to enter the human race...waiting for Adam to take a bite.
I don't see the relevance.
@@AndyfromPBG1 YEC say there was no death before the fall of man. Dinosaur bones, etc... couldn't be from before the fall. Scripture tells us that evil and death was already there waiting.
@@wayneosaur YEC say that? Scripture says it. To equate Satan’s temptation of man with billions of years as a mechanic to arrive at the stage of humans is quite a stretch...
@@arminius504 Actually Scripture only says Adam would die if he ate of the tree ... says nothing of death not existing at all ... that's an extrapolation...if death didn't exist at all it would be a meaningless term to Adam.
@@wayneosaur no it wouldn’t. What a horrible argument. Adam knew that God created him and made him a living being. It’s ridiculous to claim that Adam would not have been able to understand the concept/ meaning of death if explained to him. Scripture tells us that death entered the world through one man, Adam, because of sin. Sin is what leads to death according to Romans 5,12. So sin (you can call it spiritual death) leads to death (physical death). Thats the theology of NT writers which is why Christ had to live a sinless live to overcome physical death (which is the consequence of sin). He defeated sin and therefore he defeated physical death which resulted in the physical resurrection. That is the understanding of NT writers.
I am a former theistic evolutionists so I can sympathize but none of the TE models work with the teachings of scripture IMO including Waltons model which is IMO the best of all the evolutionist models though he did create it with the goal to reconcile evolution with genesis. That is is why I think the people wo tell me it’s the natural reading of the text are a bit ignorant. He didn’t arrive there by an unbiased approach but with an obvious agenda.
If you want to restrict death to spiritual death in the OT and NT so be it. That is your decision. I tried to do that as well but ultimately I couldn’t hold on to that view and I found it to be incompatible with scripture and especially with the meta narrative of scripture and NT theology. It forces a foreign concept into the Bible IMO similar to the day age theory of old earth creationists. But again that is just my view after I wrestled with it for a long time.
A good source for young earth creationism is the "wazooloo" channel here on TH-cam.
Anyone near Laurel, MS?
Blessed are those who have not seen but believe. We believe in what the Bible states. Scientific facts depend on repeatable techniques that produce identical results. If you can’t repeat the techniques, then you have a theory. Beliefs can’t argue with theories just like theories can’t argue with beliefs……apples and oranges.
I dont think that is what a scientific theory is.
I'm no expert, but it seems to me like you either believe God or you don't. Why futz around
Which God though?
@@Dbulkss God of the bible, Jesus Christ. The only one that gives scientific atheists headaches because of its historical accuracy, similar explanation of creation, prophecy, and unchanging Word.
@moken7 God bless you sir. Im glad you've studied the bible...
Why couldn’t the process of evolution have just begun at the fall of man? I really am curious what the theistic evolutionists would respond to that with, not that I’ve stumped anyone. I’d really just like an answer.
Complex life existed at the fall, so evolution would be rendered moot- an explanation for something that didn't happen since life existed largely as it does now.
@@AndyfromPBG1 Fair enough.
@Loving one another On naturalism, there is no objective standard stating that raping someone is always wrong. We are literally and merely walking and talking clumps of randomly collected cells. So you’re the one in a pickle here.
But let’s take your point to it’s logical conclusion: God should punish, by death, any and all evil the moment it occurs or even to prevent it from occurring. So that includes lying, stealing, lust, adultery, blasphemy, pride, arrogance, racism, sexism, murder, rape… and probably a lot more. So God does what you say he should do… and you and I and every human on earth dies instantly. And we rightly all go to hell.
But no, God is merciful to us. He gives us a path to redemption and eternal life through Jesus and his sacrifice on the cross. But upon rejecting God’s offer of salvation, the rapist gets what he deserves, the prideful gets what they deserve, the adulterous get what they deserve… etc. He will punish ALL sin when the time comes. Not just rape.
You: Why couldn't the process of evolution have just begun at the fall of man?
Me: Well, that really depends on what the animals were like before the fall, and what actually happened during, and was caused by, the fall.
Me: Based on what we know about humans today, there would have had to have been other species (non-homo-sapiens), and this would raise the question, "What species was Adam (if we have identified bones similar to his)?".
You: I really am curious what the theistic evolutionists would respond to that with, not that I've stumped anyone. l'd really just like an answer.
Me: Me too, as that bridge seems to have not been built.
Supralapsarianism places us in the same difficulty as theistic evolutionists. A moral argument about suffering is inadequate to make the case he wants to make. It is emotional, not theological. Ultimately, if you go back far enough and maintain a doctrine of sovereignty as exemplified in the supralapsarian position, you have the same problem. And... so I say,, "Who are you , oh, man...?" And... I side with Warfield on this.
The problem isn't that God rewards sin with suffering (a subcategory of the problem generally known as 'the problem of evil'). The problem is that God called the world post-Adam's creation 'very good'. The Fall happens in this 'very good' world and NOTHING changes except the moral state of man. Yet "creation groans" according to Paul (how? nature wasn't affected!). Yet the spilling of blood was a BIG deal in the immediate fallout of the Fall.
Fundamentally, this position posits that death (nature red in tooth and claw) is a good thing.
It also posits that monkeys and humans come of the same flesh, which is a whole 'nother problem, but we can leave that aside.
@@robertlewis6915 I'm not sure what the argument is here. Nature groans... yes... subsequent to the act of "Him who subjected it in hope". That subjection is from the very beginning, on an evolutionary model, and who are we to say that it is not "good" merely because physical death, suffering and extinction were always part of it? Red in tooth and claw is not "good"? By whose standard, oh man? Spiritual death came by failure in the covenant, but perhaps ultimately physical death, suffering, and extinction were always part of the sovereign design. And that was with a greater telos in the picture. Emotional arguments suggest that physical death cannot be part of the "good " natural order from its inception. That seems hubristic.
@@donald628
Romans 5:12-14
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men[e] because all sinned- 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
Sin came into the world and death through sin- implying that without sin, death would not exist. Furthermore, death 'reigned from Adam to Moses', implying that death did not reign before Adam.
@@robertlewis6915 yes, yes, I know. Ant eaters didn't eat ants, great white sharks were vegetarian, and cells in the human GI tract (or anywhere else) didn't replicate, slough off, and replace dead cells.
No, I suspect death surely was in the world. Genesis 1-3 was not intended to be a modern philosophical theodicy nor to explain secondary causal mechanisms of the manifestations of biodiversity. Rather it is a theological rejection of caanannite mythology, an explanation of covenant, and explanation for spiritual death. After all, in the day they at it, they didn't die physically. Adam lived quite a long time. And Cain feared murder from other people groups.... I don't believe he was thinking of some large collection of incestuous brothers from his sisters(s).
And Romans 5 is about spiritual death. Paul clearly believes in a historical Adam. Its not clear that he believes that there was no physical death prior to conscious sin, but he does believe that physical death was made severe by the compounding to it by spiritual death. To die is one thing, but never to return from it, residing in spiritual death...that is the problem that sin brings. Physical death itself...its a (good)mean to other ends perhaps.
@@donald628 spiritual death leads to physical death. Christ overcame physical death which was the result of sin. Sin leads to death (physical). I am a former theistic evolutionist (John waltons model which he came up with in order to validate theistic evolution as he is a member of biologos) but Scripturally it just doesn’t make any sense. Struggled with it for a long time and wanted to make it work but couldn’t. The death in Romans 5 is physical. Christ overcame physical death because Adam brought physical death into the world... the argument that Adam didn’t die immediately and that therefore it talks about spiritual death is so weak but theistic evolutionists have to make that argument so I had to as well...
If the effects of the New Adam’s (Jesus) atonement apply to before and after his sacrifice, then couldn’t also the effects of the old Adam’s rebellion apply to before and after his life also?
No, God created it very good.
The theistic evolutionist, when confronted with a skeptic who is raising the problem of evil argument, can simply point out that objective morality is impossible without God, and without morality being objective it ceases to become a valid basis for any logical argumentation.
@moken7 You didn't carefully consider what I wrote. Morality either is or is not objective, and either way the problem of evil argument falls flat because of this. The only valid basis for the existence of objective evil would be God, so, under the presumption that morality is objective, one would have to affirm God's existence in order to try and validate the problem of evil argument. If morality is subjective then the problem of evil argument completely collapses in on itself. This is the case because opinions are not valid premises in a logical argument, and if morality is subjective then the notion that there exists such a thing as evil, a premise in the problem of evil argument, is nothing more than an opinion. This would make the problem of evil argument as illogical as the reasoning "I don't like strawberry ice cream, therefore God doesn't exist."
@moken7 You have quite a few things wrong, so I'll try to start with the most important points and work my way down to the least important points. This will mean I'm responding to what you said a bit out of order.
1: Your 'society determines morality' view of morality completely invalidates the problem of evil argument. Remember that this is what the entire discussion started about.
If morality is not objective then it's subjective, and if it's subjective then subjective opinions about morality are not a valid premise in a logical argument. Morality not being objective invalidates the first premise in the problem of evil argument and therefore the argument would then not prove its conclusion. I think I understand your immediate misgiving about this point, and I'm going to address that in point 2.
2: Saying that we need some sort of "Objectivity" to determine if something is evil or good is plain wrong.
This is incorrect in a few different ways.
First off, an opinion is an opinion is an opinion. Even a collectively shared opinion is still just an opinion. If 100% of humanity could agree on an opinion, that still wouldn't transform that opinion into something objective. Without an objective basis for morality, any notion of morality is just an opinion no matter how universally that opinion may be shared.
Secondly, I haven't personally suggested that one must believe morality is objective in order to be able to tell right from wrong. I know you don't believe this, but God created humanity in a way that we, or at least the vast majority of us, innately understand right from wrong. Clearly, what you've said is not what I'm suggesting. Regardless, on to point 3.
Finally, there is a more pressing thing I should point out beyond the fact that there is no truth without objectivity. From what you seem to be suggesting, even despite some of what you've said, I'm getting the impression that you seem to think your personal experience with morality is based on truth. You're giving off the impression that you seem to really think that certain things are really, actually wrong as in the fact that they're morally wrong is a truth claim. Again, I'd argue that this is the personal experience of most of humanity just as God created us. The first thing I want to point out to you is that under my theistic worldview, the notion that this personal experience we have with morality is true is logically consistent. The second thing I want to point out to you is that under a non-theistic worldview, the notion that this personal experience we have with morality is true is logically inconsistent. You can either believe that your personal experience with morality is true despite this being logically inconsistent with a non-theistic worldview, or you can believe your personal experience with morality is just a delusion you inherited from your ancestors because it had some amount of survival value for them and therefore be logically consistent with your worldview.
Just to make sure we are crystal clear, I'm not suggesting that one has to think morality is objective in order to be able to tell apart good and evil. It's my view that God created humanity with this ability to tell right from wrong, and that even those of us who incorrectly think that God doesn't exist and/or that morality is just an opinion still have this ability to differentiate good from evil. I'm just pointing out that your personal experience with morality can only be true if God exists, and if want to both deny that God exists and be logically consistent then you'd have to deny this personal experience you have with morality.
3: "What is right or wrong in morality is determined by the consensus of people living in that society. It's why bills like Prop. 8 were able to be passed despite this bill not benefitting society by any measurable standard."
Again, I can see why this is wrong on two different levels.
For starters, there are a lot of unsavory implications that come as a result of the suggestion that laws and governments determine morality. If that notion were true, then things like the holocaust wouldn't have been immoral purely because the Nazi government made that legal. Governments are the forces behind most atrocities in human history. More people were killed as a result of governments in the 20th century than all deaths from all wars in the previous 19 centuries combined. Suggesting that governments are the basis of morality would make morality a very different thing from that which we all personally experience. One last unsavory implication of governments being the source of morality is that there logically could not be any moral improvement in a society. The implications would mean that societies that once practiced slavery were not immoral at the time that they had slaves, and when they stopped participating in slavery their morality simply changed rather than improved.
Secondly, and I wont elaborate on this further as I've already made this point, a collectively shared opinion is still just an opinion.
- "There has never been an objective way to determine if something is good or bad..."
Again, I wont elaborate too much on this. Objectivity is a prerequisite for truth. Without objectivity, morality cannot be true. If morality is not truth then it's not a valid basis for a logical argument and therefore the problem of evil argument fails.
- "...the Bible is probably the worst resource to use to determine what's right or wrong."
If you live in a western country then you probably don't actually think this. Many people born into western cultures incorrectly think that their western values are somehow universal truths accepted by all other cultures. This, with some education on the moral values of other cultures, is plainly not the case. In reality, what we think of as western moral values simply did not exist prior to Christianity. That's not to say that people didn't know basic moral truths like murder and theft are wrong, but many of the finer points you view about morality simply did not exist prior to Christianity. Europe, prior to Christianity, was just a collection of ethnic tribes that had substantially different views about morality to what we have now. It wasn't until Christianity spread across Europe that it really became the west as we know it, and this includes the western moral values you believe to be true. You can quote a few verses from the Bible without their context to try and suggest otherwise, but the historical evidence proves my case.
- "Your argument is nothing but circular reasoning that is completely dependent upon ignoring reality to justify its validity."
No, you simply don't understand the logic of what I'm telling you. If I were to give the shortest possible refutation of what you're suggest, while at the same time trying to point out to you why you're wrong, it would be this... Truth is always objective, so if morality is not objective then it's simply not true. If morality is not objectively true then it's illogical to use it as a basis for any logical argument, therefore the problem of evil argument falls flat unless morality is objective true.
Most of the big names in atheism would confirm the majority of what I've told you so far. This is why most of them, including Richard Dawkins, affirm that they believe that there isn't such a thing as moral truth.
@moken7 All I was doing was pointing out that the problem of evil argument is logically invalid regardless of whether or not morality is objective or not. If you want to suggest that morality is objective then fine, but under that presumption the problem of evil argument falls apart completely.
@moken7 You're the one here with poor reading comprehension. I never even hinted that you thought morality is objective; in fact, I suggested the exact opposite.
@moken7 1: What I meant to say was "If you want to suggest that morality is SUBJECTIVE..." That's my bad for typing that, but really you should have picked up on that being a typo/brain-fart given the context.
2: Whether or not morality is objective or subjective is entirely besides the point. My main point, and what this conversation started about, is this: If morality is subjective then the problem of evil argument fails logically, and if morality is objective then the problem of evil argument fails logically. The problem of evil argument is logically fallacious regardless of whether morality is objective or subjected.
3: In reality, whether or not morality is objective entirely depends on God's existence; if God exists then morality is necessarily objective and if God doesn't exist then it necessarily is not. However, nothing you've said so far does anything whatsoever to prove that morality is not objective.
For example, you said "What is right or wrong in morality is determined by the consensus of people living in that society." From this you could logically draw the conclusion "What a society THINKS of as being moral or immoral is determined by the consensus of the people living in that society.", but nothing about what a society thinks of as being moral or immoral has anything to do with whether or not there is an objective standard by which to determine whether or not that society is factually correct or incorrect in their assessments. An entire society could come together to believe that a certain action is immoral: if morality is objective then they are either factually correct or incorrect in their assessment, and if morality is subjective then they are neither factually correct or incorrect as such labels are illogical to place upon subjective preferences. My point is that how a person or an entire society comes to certain moral conclusions has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not morality itself is objective or subjective.
People can claim that they view morality as subjective, but no one actually lives their lives as if they truly believe this to be the case. For example, you said "Saying that we need some sort of "Objectivity" to determine if something is evil or good is plain wrong.", but this statement inherently implies the objectivity of morality. Note that you didn't say something to the effect of "A society doesn't need objective morality to DECIDE what is good or evil.". That would be truly consistent with the notion of morality being subjective; nothing is inherently, IE objectively, good or evil and instead something is only good or evil based on whether or not the society says it is or not. If a society were to come to the conclusion that torturing babies for fun was good then torturing babies would truly be good rather than evil. No, instead you suggested that society doesn't need objective morality to DETERMINE whether or not something is good or evil. This is implying that an action itself is inherently either good or evil, and society is just coming together to try and judge what they think the truth of morality is concerning that action.
Again, people naturally live their lives and operate subconsciously under the presumption that morality is objective. One must actively fight against this natural impulse to even suggest they believe otherwise, and once they've been wronged that mental gymnastics flies right out the window (I don't mean that as an insult to you; I only use that terminology to emphasize how unnatural this line of thinking is).
Guys… guys… I know the actual answer and it’s this: all our efforts regarding this matter are but speculation. God only knows and we’ll find out in the next life. In the mean time, what’s most important is that you love your neighbor in the way that you discuss the matter, whether you agree or disagree.
Truth matters. The Bible matters. If it didn't matter, the Bible wouldn't mention it.
@@robertlewis6915 Except that there’s a difference between what the Bible says and what we interpret what it means. We know that Jesus is the truth, but one’s interpretation of Genesis is not essential for salvation. We human beings could (actually we will) discuss and argue how God exactly created the world and all the details in between…and what all the prophesies and symbolism that Revelations contains… all until Kingdom comes. But the bottom line is that we’ll never know. Only God does, and what’s important is that we trust in Him who does know.
For it is written:
“And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.”
1 Corinthians 13:2
Loving the Lord and your neighbor is more important than figuring out the exact scientific implications and explanations of Genesis 1 & 2.
@@mukoku It is true that loving God and loving one's neighbor is more important, but good doctrine is still important to the Christian. If we do not understand the whole body of Scripture as best as we can, how can we be sure we are following it to the greatest extent possible?
@@robertlewis6915 I agree with the general idea of your post, but I wouldn't make the point the way you do; that is, by contrasting loving God as something different from understanding Scripture. That very commandment is "Love the Lord your God with *all* your heart, *mind* and strength." Mu Koku setting a contrast between loving God and seeking to understand him through what he revealed about himself goes against what the Bible teaches. We love God by meditating on his word and thinking deeply about what it says. Creating a barrier between study of the word and love of God is wrong and goes against God's greatest commandment.
@@oracleoftroy Good elucidation and expansion on my point. I fell into the offered dichotomy and I apologize for the error.
“The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.”
Neil deGrasse Tyson
“You signed a social contract to take experimental gene therapy even if it doesn’t help prevent illness and gives you disease “
Neil deGrasse Tyson
NEVILLE GODDARD CAN WAKE YOU UP.
F-14s are wayy better looking than the f-16... Just saying
I always thought that God used evolution to repopulate the world after the flood. You couldn’t possibly fit every species in the ark but you probably could fit every type/class. God then could have used evolution to multiply the amount of species in the order. Just an idea.
Depends because the Bible says that two of every kinds not species like one type of dog or one type of cat etc… speciation is the dividing of dna within a select genome or kind so ig in a way yes “evolution” would have created all these different species but it’s more like basic biological reproduction diversity. Just a suggestion not sayings that’s it but more food for thought :)
Speciation happens, no young earth creationist thinks it doesn't because it's something we can observe.
The current position of creationists is that God directed two of every 'kind' ('baramin' to be technical, if memory serves) to the Ark. A 'kind' is roughly defined as a group of all creatures capable of producing offspring of some sort with each other. Thus after the Flood, the animals God chose would breed and their genome would adapt over time, within the limits of their kind, resulting in the many current species. The various attempts to count 'kinds' have produced a number of estimates well within practicality to carry.
I believe Answers in Genesis has a number of papers about this on their website.
When the Bible is being literal then what it says is literally true. When the Bible is being figurative or metaphorical then what it says is still true, just not literally. Although the Bible itself is immutable and eternally true, how we as fallible humans interpret the Bible can and does change over time. Imposing our modern, 21st century perspective, which didn't exist when Genesis was written and is vastly different from the cultural perspective of those who wrote it, onto the texts of Genesis, which expected a very high level of context on the part of the reader; a context 21st century laymen who don't study ancient near eastern cultures simply do not have, isn't a proper way to determine the truth God was telling us via these texts. Was Genesis's 7 day creation account meant literally? One might come to this conclusion from our modern perspective and a plain reading of some of the texts, but a plain reading of other parts of God's word contradict this notion. In short, as I haven't been thus far, the 7 day creation account in Genesis was never meant to be understood as being literal. I'm not an expert this subject, not even close, but I'll point anyone reading this to the Inspiring Philosophy youtube channel as he seems to be very educated on this topic and goes into great detail explaining God's word from the cultural perspective of those who wrote and initially read Genesis. th-cam.com/video/pwnerL8M1pE/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/8AoLYeFi2ms/w-d-xo.html
Something I've personally taken notice of is that Christianity, unlike any other worldview, is free to follow the evidence no matter where it leads. The chief reason for this is that the only notion of this world that Christianity stakes its legitimacy on is the crucifixion of Jesus, and the historical evidence to support this notion is absolutely stellar. In short, every other worldview besides Christianity hinges upon the natural world being a particular way. Islam hinges its legitimacy on the sun setting in a pool of muddy water. Non-theistic worldview hinges the legitimacy of the possibility, or in reality the impossibility, of nature somehow being responsible for its own existence. Only Christianity is compatible with the physical evidence of this physical world no matter what that evidence seems to suggest. Imposing a literal interpretation of the 7 day creation account, something that purely on a Biblical basis can be refuted, is to give up this great advantage Christianity has over all other, and therefore false, views.
In short, as again I haven't been thus far, Christianity is true, and because Christianity is true we can follow any and all evidence wherever it leads and none of it could possibly refute the truth of God. If the scientific evidence points to the big bang and evolution, as it does, then so be it. God is not just the way and the life; he is also the truth. To find truth in any form, including that of the big bang and evolution, is, in a small way, to reveal the divine revelation of God and to exalt Him. Praise Jesus, our Lord and savior.
Christianity is not true. The Bible is true.
You can't get the big Bang or evolution from The Bible.
Well said. It amazes me that atheists and creationists share their folly in the use of a couple chapters of genesis as a science textbook. They both miss the point as they try to prove or disprove it in the context of a modern understanding. If it was Intended or relevant for us to know those secrets it be voluminous in text to explain it to our “pea brains”. While doing that for our ancient ancestors would miss the point. How little we are as humans in thinking and our lot in life in comparison to the vastness of the universe and/or omnipotent/omnipresent God translates to the atheist and the Christian alike.
Inspiring philosophy is a follower of Waltons model. A model I once held to but it doesn’t work. I held to all popular theistic evolutionist models but I had to abandon them one after the other. This is the last model I held to but it’s not compatible with scripture either.
@@BackcountryPassport genesis is written as historical narrative. Statistical computer analysis has proven that. The Bible is not a science book. No one claims that but it is a history book and Genres are important. Waltons theory is build upon his theistic evolutionist foundation. He came up with his model in order to make a believe in theistic evolution possible scripturally. Now people act like that it is the natural unbiased reading which is of course nonsense. It’s the best theistic evolutionist reading of Genesis IMO and I embraced it before abandoning theistic evolution all together. Adam brought physical death into the world. That is the understanding of the NT writers and Christ the last Adam needed to defeat physical death which he did. I think TE should just embrace that the NT writers had a primitive world view and got it wrong scientifically but that theologically they got it right. I wouldn’t hold to such a view myself but forcing the “spiritual death” narrative into the NT text is like Hugh Ross claiming that the creation days are long periods of time. It’s exegetical nonsense.
@@arminius504 thanks for the info. I will chew on the historic vs science component of genesis. I try to be open minded and learn as much as I can. Do you have any links for the historical stats you reference? Thanks!
Algorithm
All truth is God's truth is wrong. It s more biblical to say God's truth is all truth.
Semantics
@@gl00merz No, not semantics. Think about it
God's truth is the bible.
@@soloscriptura Doesn't that disprove your ordering? The Bible doesn't contain what I ate for breakfast yesterday, yet that truth is still God's truth regardless of its presence in the written word.
@@oracleoftroy God is truth. Therefore what God thinks is truth.
I know what I think I ate for breakfast this morning, but I don't know what God thinks I ate for breakfast. He hasn't revealed that to me.
I'm sure I think what he thinks but I may be wrong. I'm not infallible.
Anything God hasn't revealed cannot be counted as truth, by me as I might be wrong. He's divine. I'm human.
Therefore God's truth is all truth.
The bible is the only thing that I can count as truth. I can't be wrong about it's propositions, but I might be wrong about everything else.
@@soloscriptura Clarkian?
Old age creationism is not the same thing as theistic evolution.
“‘There are no truth claims in science’ is a truth claim.” Yeah but “there are no truth claims in science” isn’t a scientific claim. So that’s not really a defeater of that quote.
Any theory must make a falsifiable prediction. The theory then enters a single elimination tournament where it is either disproven or not disproven. The whole point of the scientific method is finding truth.
@@robertcoeymanjr.2550 Sure. I agree that science is searching for truth. I’m just saying that pastor Doug didn’t defeat that claim. Maybe you just did.
No, he's not claiming that his claim is scientific, so your assertion that it's not a defeated of a scientific claim doesn't stand.
@@AndyfromPBG1 He quoted them “Scientific theories do not make truth claims.” Then it seemed as though he tried to defeat that idea by saying essentially “that, itself, is a truth claim.” But that doesn’t defeat the original idea “Scientific theories do not make truth claims” because “Scientific theories do not make truth claims” isn’t a scientific theory.
In retrospect, this is really a pointless, nitpicky thing I posted so I’m cool with just going about our business as if I hadn’t said it lol. But if you wanna get into the weeds about it, I’m up for it.