One more time: Classical theists do not believe in God as "a being," good or bad. They believe in God as Beingness Itself.
Could you elaborate on that please? "Classical theists say that God wills the good of the creatures. Human beings, however, do not always will their own good, or the good of other people. In those cases, on the classical view, God brings it about that people freely decide not to will the good of others. This makes God responsible for evil and suffering in a way that contradicts divine goodness. On the classical view, for example, the crimes that disfigure human history are the fault of human beings, but they are also God's doing." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/ "Classical theists believe in the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good being. The problem is that while their standard arguments (cosmological, design etc.) may establish the existence of a creator God, they do nothing to establish that the creator is all-good. Hence they must do something more to show that the creator is all-good. This brings the EGC challenge into play since it suggests that the case for an Evil God is just as strong as the case for a Good God. This is where things get interesting. When confronted with the idea of an Evil God, most classical theists will be inclined to simply dismiss it as being absurd. But if all other arguments fail to support the existence of a Good God, and if the evidential problem of good is just as strong as the evidential problem of evil, shouldn’t they then accept that idea of a Good God is absurd too" http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.in/2011/10/what-can-laws-evil-god-challenge-do.htmlhttp://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.in/2011/10/what-c http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.in/2011/10/what-c an-laws-evil-god-challenge-do.html > -- authfriend <authfriend@...> wrote: > > Not classical theists. <The tremendous wastage in the evolutionary process should make the ID theorists and Theists realise that their beliefs are bullshit.> <jedi_spock@...> wrote: Nature throws a wide range of mutations into the environment. Many fail to make it, in the process, but some always survive. This gives evolution the versatility and the flexibility to deal with the capricious and erratic, fluctuations in the environment. The tremendous wastage in the evolutionary process should make the ID theorists and Theists realise that their beliefs are bullshit. More than 99% percent of species that ever existed on earth are already extinct. The extinction rate is so high that many evolutionary biologists state that extinction is a natural process in evolution. In that sense, evolution and nature's systems are anti-fragile. You spray DDT, nature immediately spawns the next Gen mosquitos resistant to DDT. You treat an infection with penicillin, and nature immediately spawns the next Gen bacteria resistant to penicillin. > --- salyavin <no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: > > You can't say that it won't happen again but it was a fluke on this planet, but then with so many bacteria sliming about maybe it was bound to happen sooner or later? But it wasn't necessary, there is no grand plan unless it's one that does its best not to look like one! > > This holographic idea that John has got fixed on doesn't explain how it looks like undirected genetic meandering. Think how many hominid types there have been, they dig up a new one each week, but we are the only survivors with just a slight edge over the Neanderthals. If the ice age were still in full flow would they be the majority humans still? Evolution is as much luck as superiority, being in the right place at the right time goes a long way to survival. > > > Share <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > > > John, I wish I could find a post from salyavin somewhat recently. It had to do with how life started, the combining of something with something else and it was a random happening, will never happen again kind of thing. Anyway, it speaks to this point about life and its pure randomness. But I also like the holographic idea. > > > > > On Sunday, February 23, 2014 7:14 PM, "jr_esq@..." <jr_esq@...> wrote: > > > > > > Share, > > > > > > I was thinking along the lines of life, including the existence of human beings, as a reflection of the abundance of life in the universe. If this is so, then what are the mechanisms for making this happen at such disparate places. Perhaps the holographic theory of the universe may be true. > > > Also, even if we can detect the existence of humanoids in these exoplanets, is it possible for us to communicate with them or even visit their worlds? At this time, our technology is not advanced enough to make this happen. > > >