Evolution And The Traditional Notion Of An All-Loving God Are Incompatible

In order for one who holds to the view of God this argument is predicated on the refute the EAAG, they would have to show how the argument is somehow logically invalid, or show how a wholly good, morally perfect God is compatible with the existence of gratuitous, logically unnecessary animal & pre-human hominid suffering. If Con can't do this, he must admit that the traditional notion of God is either incompetent, indifferent, or intentionally cruel, in which case the traditional concept of God would be logically incoherent with what he’d be conceding. That would also mean that this concept of God cannot logically exist. And since this concept of God must exist in every possible world, as per the ontological argument, if there exists a single possible world that this God is incompatible with, then it destroys the possibility of this God existing in any possible world. Con has tried to argue that I have not justified my premises enough to support the conclusion. I disagree, but I will provide more detail to answer some of the objections that he has raised & I will show that he has already conceded my argument. P1. Necessary suffering To anyone who understands how evolution works, the existence of suffering is self evident. Evolution requires a rather cruel survival of the fittest operation, where the strongest & best adapted are more likely to survive & the weakest will die out. This process guarantees that millions of animals & millions of species of animals that evolve will be ill-equipped for their environment, & will suffer & die. Genetic mutations can sometimes harm & cause birth defects & that logically leads to suffering too. That’s basically how evolution works. Furthermore, given the time that evolution requires, some species will go completely extinct because they will be unable to adapt to changing geography & climate. Evolution also naturally gives rise to predation, where animals feed off of one another & this creates further suffering. Some 99.9 % of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct. [i] There’s no logically necessary reason why millions of species had to suffer & go extinct if the purpose of this universe is to allow humans to live. Now if all this happens naturally its one thing, but if God intentionally set it up this way, he must be capable of indifference or cruelty & that’s not logically compatible with being morally perfect. I will skip P2 since Con found no objection to it P3. Soul-less creatures & objects go to heaven Con is arguing that animals, plants & rocks go to heaven. I’d like to know what is his source or evidence that animals without souls go to heaven. Consider the logical consequences of such an idea. Do cockroaches go to heaven then? Does the roach you crushed under your foot now get to roam freely for an eternity side by side with you in heaven where it is free from the possibility of being stepped on? When a human gets to heaven will there be trillions of bugs who have been risen & now occupy heaven for all eternity? I have never heard a theist or anyone who believes in heaven utter something that sounds so ridiculous. If there are mountains in heaven, I’d like to know how Con knows this. What are his sources of information? What matters here is conscious animal suffering. And what would an animal do in heaven for eternity? How would a carnivorous lion live in heaven if it has to eat the gazelle that’s also occupying heaven for eternity? What theological basis does Con have for believing all of this? And finally, Con needs to justify why compensation equates to justification. If I kidnap & torture Con for 10 years in my basement, & then set him free & offer him 10 million dollars as “compensation”, does that justify the act of torturing him for 10 years for fun? Con needs to explain why this is logically justified. P4. Neanderthals did not have souls I want to know what information Con has to make the claim that Neanderthals possibly had souls. Most theists believe there is something special about humans. This specialness comes from God breathing in a soul to us at some point during our evolution. Most theists who accept evolution believe that this soul gave us our intellect & moral senses, though not all theists believe this. It’s this soul that was breathed into us that gives us the afterlife. If Neanderthals had souls when did they get there soul? Do all things have souls? Flies? Bacteria? Feces? Rocks? What evidence does Con have to back up any non-humans having souls? He needs to provide more facts & evidence backing up this claim. P5. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism basically stands for the greatest good for the greatest amount, & that sometimes means the ends justify the means. God’s end according to virtually all theists, is human beings. So all other species that evolved before us would have been means. There’s no logically necessary reason why millions of these species had to exist at all, let alone suffer & go extinct. I’d like to know what religion & denomination Con belongs to that believes animals are God’s end. Or has he decided to invent his own theology that puts animals equal to that of humans? P5B. Omnicience If God cannot know the future, then he is not all-knowing & Con would be conceding the notion of the traditional God that I said was incompatible with evolution. So if Con is going to go that route, he will be handing me a victory. He needs to explain why it’s logically impossible for God to know that evolution requires suffering, & why this would somehow require more knowledge than the kind of knowledge God would need in order to create & fine tune a universe with billions of stars & galaxies. Does Con really think that God creates a world not knowing what will come of it? How would he know humans would even evolve? How would he know that earth would even develop if God is essentially gambling on his creation of the universe? Does God really roll the dice & cross his fingers that he gets a universe with humans in it? If you take seriously the kind of God that Con is portraying, God looks like an incompetent, fumbling buffoon, who hopes things turn out the way he wants. That would be conceding my argument. So we need a better description of God from Con that outlines God’s level of knowledge. As far as I know, God knows everything that is logically possible to know & it’s logically possible to know that evolution requires suffering. P6. Unwarranted Suffering Premise 6 is the most important logical aspect of the argument that premises 1 – 5 seek to establish justification for. Above I have given significant justification that evolution requires suffering. If Con doesn’t think I have sufficiently proved that evolution requires suffering, then I’d challenge him to describe how an evolutionary process could unfold that does not contain suffering. So to summarize this point, since evolution logically requires suffering, if God chose evolution to create humans, he chose a method that logically requires suffering. But, there’s no reason why God had to choose evolution. He chose it out of his own free will. And I disagree that God wouldn’t know that evolution would require suffering. Why even call such a being God if it’s incapable of knowing everything that is logically true? Conclusion As I have given ample evidence that (1) evolution requires suffering & that (2) God chose to use evolution for no reason other than he wanted to, & that (3) it would have been in God’s power to know what evolution would require, then evolution is not compatible with the traditional notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing, & all-loving God. Con seems to be down-playing some of God’s greatness in order to make him more compatible with evolution. That means he is conceding the argument already. [i] . http://tinyurl.com...