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

Pro still has trouble understanding the burden of proof. He is making the positive claim. I am only making the negative claim and rebutting his argument. He gives the example of an evolutionist debating a creationist and says that the evolutionist must give evidence of evolution. But to rebut creationism, the evolutionist does not have to show that evolution is true, merely that it is possible. If he would like to go further and argue for the truth of evolution, then he is then making a positive claim and hence he shares the burden. That is not analagous to this debate. I am making no positive claims or empirical claims and I do not have to. I merely have to show that evolution is compatible with the traditional concept of God. That’s all. Things are assumed to be possible until proven impossible. That’s how the burden of proof works. Pro has to show that evolution and a traditional God are incompatible, and he makes an empirical claim too that needs support. [P1] Pro states that evolution requires suffering and that I conceded this. He says I merely asserted that evolution does not require suffering. If God is the author and creator of nature, then he controls it. As I said before, I completely agree with Pro that evolution involves suffering. It is self-evident. However, Pro is claiming that evolution somehow “requires” suffering. This is a tremendous claim. Pro has to show that it is logically impossible for evolution to occur without suffering. This he has not done. He has only asserted it. In fact, in his elaborations, he says that evolution requires death and extinction. The philosopher David Hume explained elegantly that just because we see one follow from another, it does not mean that the two are logically linked, or that one requires the other. It is a natural temptation to do so, but we must resist it. [1] Pro also argues that God cannot let nature take its course if he is the creator of it, but that’s another non-sequiter. When we say that someone created something, like saying that that Seth MacFarlane created Family Guy, it means he lit the fuse or got it started. It does not entail that he controls every movement of it. That is incompatible with freedom. MacFarlane created Family Guy, but that does not mean he writes every episode, directs every episode, does every voice, draw all the animation… If some force is involved with each and every move that evolution/humans/animals make, that’s not a creator, that’s a controller!, completely at odds with the loving God that we agreed to. [P3] Con needs to give some scriptural evidence for his claim that it is possible that things other than souls can go to Heaven. Anybody can say anything that is possible. He has an obligation to show how it is possible and evidential. The traditional concept of Heaven involves bodily resurrection. Traditionally Heaven is spoken of in physical terms, not ghosts floating around in non-space. I assumed that if we agreed to talk about the traditional concept of God, then it would only be reasonable that we should talk about the traditional concept of Heaven. Pro’s idea of Heaven being a purely non-physical and non-material place is an obscure concept of Heaven that few people hold. Things are assumed to be possible until proven impossible. That’s how the burden of proof works. Pro has to show that it is logically impossible for anything but souls to go to Heaven. He has failed to do this. I make no evidential or scriptural claim. Pro is overstating my burden. Saying that something is logically possible makes a logical claim, not an empirical claim. I have no burden of evidence since I make no evidential claim. [P3B] Now Con tries to backtrack on his earlier assertions that non-humans “possibly” had souls & went to heaven. (1) in order for him to be correct, it has to be actual, not just possible. (2) he seems to know the mind of God who’d “allow beautiful”…How am I back-tracking? I never claimed anything more than the possibility of Neanderthals going to Heaven. Pro says I must show this is actual, not just possible. How many times do I have to explain this? I am only showing compatibility. I am making no factual claims. You can discuss what is possible for something to do without assuming that the thing exists. Pro claims that I am claiming to know the mind of God in saying that cockroaches probably will not exist in Heaven. That’s absurd. I only showed that it is plausibly consistent with the traditional concept of God. Indeed, if God is all loving, why would be allow junk in Heaven. That is reasonable and consistent. Pro needs to stop overstating my claims. [P4] Now Con agrees that only humans have souls. He has again conceded my argument that soul-less non humans suffer for no logically necessary reason…some hominids were not human. Now I agree? What? From the beginning I never disagreed with the idea of that only humans have souls or that evolution exacerbates suffering. That was never part of my argument. I have not conceded this because I never disagreed with it in the first place. My argument from the beginning has been that Pro needs to give evidence (anthropological evidence obviously) for his evidential claim. He still has not. He has not fulfilled his evidential burden. It is possible that Neanderthals had souls and possible that they did not. I’m remaining neutral on the issue. [P5] If Con believes that animals are an end of God, then he has invented his own theology. Aha, notice how in round two Pro claimed I said that animals were the end of God or somehow equal to humans. Now he says I claim that animals are simply an end. He implicitly concedes that he straw-manned my argument. I’m glad this time he’s actually addressing the argument I made. Pro then adds that he knows of no theology that supports my views, and that my view that God might actually care for animals is a “wildly speculative notion”. Really? Wildly speculative? And I guess he’s never heard of Christianity, which has explicit quotes expressing God’s love of animals. [2] And Pro has a dilemma here. If animals are special creatures, then they deserve to be compensated in Heaven, and if they nothing special, then God can’t be faulted for using them for evolution. Either way, Pro loses. [P5B] Even if God did not know that evolution would involve suffering, why did He allow evolution to continue on after he did find out that it involves suffering. To God, an infinite being by definition, a finite number of something, such as 3.7 billion, would be mind-blowingly insignificant. I like to use the analogy of a speck of sand in the palm of my hand to illustrate the difference between infinity and finitude. Pro is essentially asking “Why didn’t God do something about that speck of sand? We agreed to discuss the traditional concept of God, which involves an infinite God and an eternity of Heaven, both making any amount of temporary evolutionary suffering pretty menial in the long run. Pro’s argument makes no sense when critically examined. CONCLUSION For Pro’s argument to be sound (for him to support his contention) he must show that the conclusion follows from the premises and that the premises are all true, yet I have found problems in premise 1, 3, 4, and 5. Premise 4, the empirical one, asserts that Neanderthals did not have souls. This claim requires anthropological evidence. His other claims, the logical ones, rely on non-sequiters and an obscure definition of God. The actuality of suffering in evolution does not entail its necessity, its requirement. That God uses means/ends reasoning (as we all do) to bring about humans does not make him a calculating utilitarian. And the traditional concept of God does not include him doing or knowing that which is logically impossible, while it specifically includes an infinite eternal God that can overcome suffering with infinite and eternal goods. Bottom line: Pro has failed to support his resolution.