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.
> > >
