15 Mass Extinctions - End Product: Homosapiens

MisterEpicurus

We've all heard the argument propounded by Christopher Hitchens where he talks of human evolution for 100,000 years through suffering and misery.

I was thinking about it from a more distant perspective. According to the theist position, one must believe that God superintended and planned mass extinction approximately 15 times (5 major ones and ~10 'minor' ones). All of these mass extinctions were obviously required for us to be here. Often we hear of evolution as one continuous broken line of descendent's but forget that all of these descendent's were nearly wiped out at one of many mass extinction events.

Indeed, we're not excluded from these events and one is bound to happen to us in the future. It's speculated that about every 20-30 million years some form of extinction event occurs. So why would a god superintend and formulate such a bizarre plan...in essence, he orchestrated at least 15 mass extinctions for us to be here.

It's true to say that extinctions 'open up' avenues for new life to grow and flourish but I don't think that detracts from the point. This all powerful, all loving and all knowing god decided to undergo 15 mass extinctions to kill another person (himself) to make people behave better, and then will have us all killed in a future mass extinction event.

Believable? I certainly don't think so.

Turtwig

You as a mere nothing speck of a finite being cannot make claim to understand the mind of a infinite one. :mad:

qrrgprgua

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

and then will have us all killed in a future mass extinction event.

Believable? I certainly don't think so.

The "us" will be the "Them" as we won't be around. Life depends what you mean by life.. Physical empirical or Spiritual metaphysical.

Undergod

Mysterious ways.

Also, that's based on evolutionist atheist science, which flat-out denies the self-evident fact that the earth CAN'T be more the 6,000 or so years old.

endacl

Who said homo sapiens is an 'end product'. Evolution hasn't gone away, you know...

Opticom

This is along the theme that Religion and Science must conflict, known as the conflict thesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis

MagicMarker

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

So why would a god superintend and formulate such a bizarre plan...

I happen to know the answer, but don't think I should post any spoilers.

PM me for further details...

MisterEpicurus

endacl wrote: »

Who said homo sapiens is an 'end product'. Evolution hasn't gone away, you know...

True - I didn't mean it in that sense. I meant it in terms of the product which needed to exist for 'god' to be ready to kill his son.

MisterEpicurus

qrrgprgua wrote: »

The "us" will be the "Them" as we won't be around. Life depends what you mean by life.. Physical empirical or Spiritual metaphysical.

Where have you seen spiritual life? I'd be curious to meet it...

Turtwig

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Where have you seen spiritual life? I'd be curious to meet it...

Oh but you have met it . . .

recedite

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

So why would a god superintend and formulate such a bizarre plan...in essence, he orchestrated at least 15 mass extinctions for us to be here.

It's His hobby. Its like standing up loads of dominoes on end, and then watching them all get knocked down. The best fun was when He drowned everyone in The Flood, except for the Noah family of course. Because He needed them to repopulate the Earth. (He had lost the special magic wand that creates lifeforms out of dirt a while before then, so He needed to maintain seed populations).

MisterEpicurus

I still find it hard to believe that anyone remains a believer and still thinks that 15 mass extinctions and our impending extinction was part of a divine plan. Surely it's so obviously unlikely to be true.

Ellis Dee

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I still find it hard to believe that anyone remains a believer and still thinks that 15 mass extinctions and our impending extinction was part of a divine plan. Surely it's so obviously unlikely to be true.

15 mass extinctions probably comes nowhere near the real figure. Bear in mind that the god-botherers would have us believe their sky fairy created the entire universe, not just planet Earth. That being the case, the number of mass extinctions that have happened in the 14 billion years or so since the Big Bang, the number of planets and even galaxies that have been totally wrecked in massive cosmic cataclysms, is probably in the billions, trillions or higher. Whole stars have gone through their entire life cycle, exploded and the dust and gas that was left have in turn gone on the create a new generation of stars ---

Opticom

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

This all powerful, all loving and all knowing god decided to undergo 15 mass extinctions tokill another person (himself) to make people behave better, and then will have us all killed in a future mass extinction event.

Believable? I certainly don't think so.

Indeed, and I don't know which particular belief you're referring to, but it's not any recognisable Christian belief.

As for evolution, the Theistic evolution view, (as opposed to young earth creationism view) is generally accepted by most major Christian churches, virtually all Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that don't believe in a totally literalist stance concerning scriptures.

Kivaro

endacl wrote: »

Who said homo sapiens is an 'end product'. Evolution hasn't gone away, you know...

And I'm thankful that it hasn't.
If it finished with us, then I'd be very disappointed and would be asking for my money back.

I'm hoping for an enlightened bunch of homo sapien descendants, because the present crop ain't too bright ........................ (believin' in fairies and all that).

MagicMarker

Opticom wrote: »

Indeed, and I don't which particular belief your referring to, but it's not any recognisable Christian belief.

Well if you're happy to believe in evolution and believe we're all part of 'God's plan' then logic dictates that the extinction of all species before us was also part of 'God's plan'.

But let me guess, you'd like me to quote the relevant parts of the bible that says this?

MisterEpicurus

Opticom wrote: »

Indeed, and I don't which particular belief your referring to, but it's not any recognisable Christian belief.

As for evolution, the Theistic evolution, (as opposed to Young Earth) creationism the view of is generally accepted by major Christian churches, including the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church and some mainline Protestant denominations; virtually all Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that don't believe in a totally literalist stance concerning scriptures.

What I'm saying can't be a belief of any religious system because all of these extinctions are not and could not be mentioned in any religious text.

So no, it's not a belief.

But what is a belief is the concept of a being that is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving etc. I think this view of 15 mass extinctions is incompatible with any religion which claims to have a god with those three properties.

Opticom

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

What I'm saying can't be a belief of any religious system because all of these extinctions are not and could not be mentioned in any religious text.

So no, it's not a belief.

But what is a belief is the concept of a being that is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving etc. I think this view of 15 mass extinctions is incompatible with any religion which claims to have a god with those three properties.

It's not clear to me what exactly you are claiming, is it that Christians cannot believe in evolution ?

Opticom

MagicMarker wrote: »

Well if you're happy to believe in evolution and believe we're all part of 'God's plan' then logic dictates that the extinction of all species before us was also part of 'God's plan'.

But let me guess, you'd like me to quote the relevant parts of the bible that says this?

No I don't use the bible to explain scientific theories like evolution, why do you ?

MisterEpicurus

Opticom wrote: »

It's not clear to me what exactly you are claiming, is it that Christians cannot believe in evolution ?

It's pretty clear to me.

1. Theists claim Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent diety
2. 15 Mass Extinctions (and our impending one) that cause mass suffering and could be prevented.
3. There is no reason to suggest an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity exists.

MagicMarker

Opticom wrote: »

No I don't use the bible to explain scientific theories like evolution, why do you ?

I wasn't offering to use the bible to explain scientific theories.

Opticom

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

It's pretty clear to me.

1. Theists claim Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent diety
2. 15 Mass Extinctions (and our impending one) that cause mass suffering and could be prevented.
3. There is no reason to suggest an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity exists.

That's not a correctly constructed argument, its non sequitur logic, as your conclusion (which may be true or false) does not follow from your premises.

MisterEpicurus

Opticom wrote: »

That's not a correctly constructed argument, its non sequitur logic, as your conclusion (which may be true or false) does not follow from your premises.

Obviously, I phrased it in terms of definites by saying 'no reason'. :rolleyes:

Essentially what I'm trying to say is that the concept of 15 mass extinctions with our impending extinction...indeed thousands of diseases which will kill us at will, not to mention earthquakes and natural viruses which can rapidly multiply and kill us all.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall of that type of extinction stuff...

...does not logically adhere to the principles of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence together. And my conclusion may be false...I grant that...but I think it makes it much more unlikely to be believable. How can you square this circle? [Sort of a play on the Argument from Evil]

Opticom

Opticom wrote: »

That's not a correctly constructed argument, firstly its non sequitur logic, as your conclusion (which may be true or false) does not follow from your premises. Secondly, your premises may or may not be true, and for a conclusion to be valid the premises must be true.

So which of his premises aren't true?
That god is claimed to be omnipotent, omniscient and omni benevolent?
That there haven't been at least 15 mass extinctions?
That millions of species dying out doesn't count as suffering?

And how does the conclusion not emerge from the premises?

Why would God cause this long circuitous path to humans rather than just poofing us modern animals into existence like in the bible?
Doing it one way means that he causes suffering, therefore he could not be omni benevolent.
But if he was forced to do it that way, that means he is not omnipotent.

So why did God cause 15 mass extinctions?

Wereghost

There's another aspect to the issue of an anthropocentric yet omniscient and omnipotent creator, which is the sheer length of time between extinctions. The dinosaurs were around for circa 160 million years before God allegedly went nuclear, and even then He supposedly didn't get around to us for about another 65 million years, so why the delays? Hitchens brought this up at some point in God Is Not Great, and if I recall he pointed out that this anthropocentric, interventionist version of God doesn't sound all that impressive, all things considered. To me, it makes a kind of sense that religious people might want to embrace Young Earth Creationism - YEC might be nonsense, but at least it postulates a God who isn't, anthropocentrically, a conspicuous underachiever.

MisterEpicurus

Scrawny71 wrote: »

There's another aspect to the issue of an anthropocentric yet omniscient and omnipotent creator, which is the sheer length of time between extinctions. The dinosaurs were around for circa 160 million years before God allegedly went nuclear, and even then He supposedly didn't get around to us for about another 65 million years, so why the delays? Hitchens brought this up at some point in God Is Not Great, and if I recall he pointed out that this anthropocentric, interventionist version of God doesn't sound all that impressive, all things considered. To me, it makes a kind of sense that religious people might want to embrace Young Earth Creationism - YEC might be nonsense, but at least it postulates a God who isn't, anthropocentrically, a conspicuous underachiever.

I also read somewhere that it was intentional for this asteroid to be on its trajectory starting at 165 thousand years ago until finally it got inside our solar system to wipe out the dinosaurs...what if it missed after 100 thousand years of travel? :rolleyes:

MagicMarker

Scrawny71 wrote: »

There's another aspect to the issue of an anthropocentric yet omniscient and omnipotent creator, which is the sheer length of time between extinctions. The dinosaurs were around for circa 160 million years before God allegedly went nuclear, and even then He supposedly didn't get around to us for about another 65 million years, so why the delays? Hitchens brought this up at some point in God Is Not Great, and if I recall he pointed out that this anthropocentric, interventionist version of God doesn't sound all that impressive, all things considered. To me, it makes a kind of sense that religious people might want to embrace Young Earth Creationism - YEC might be nonsense, but at least it postulates a God who isn't, anthropocentrically, a conspicuous underachiever.

The standard religious response to this is that God exists outside of time. So millions of years to us is nothing to God.

Makes sense I guess....

Opticom

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Obviously, I phrased it in terms of definites by saying 'no reason'. :rolleyes:

Essentially what I'm trying to say is that the concept of 15 mass extinctions with our impending extinction...indeed thousands of diseases which will kill us at will, not to mention earthquakes and natural viruses which can rapidly multiply and kill us all.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall of that type of extinction stuff...

...does not logically adhere to the principles of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence together. And my conclusion may be false...I grant that...but I think it makes it much more unlikely to be believable. How can you square this circle? [Sort of a play on the Argument from Evil]

Ok, I think I understand your argument, it's a version of the problem of natural evil.

So, with your knowledge of the chain of evolutionary events, how would man and the natural world as we know it exist today if these natural 'mass' extinctions were not permitted ? Was there an alternative non theistic evolutionary process, and if so what was it ?

rccaulfield

Most people haven't a clue about any mass extinction let alone evolution. Any believer who is aware of the history of the planet yet still believes will be making mumbo jumbo up such as god exists outside of timeor works in mysterious ways etc which is just embarrasing.

MrPudding

qrrgprgua wrote: »

The "us" will be the "Them" as we won't be around.

How do you know we won't be around? Are the end times not coming? Is there anything that will make you realise the ridiculousness of your beliefs? I expect there isn't, given that with all the "revelations" of the last few years you can't even see the despicable organisation that is your precious church for what it is.

MrP

endacl

MrPudding wrote: »

qrrgprgua wrote: »

The "us" will be the "Them" as we won't be around.

How do you know we won't be around? Are the end times not coming? Is there anything that will make you realise the ridiculousness of your beliefs? I expect there isn't, given that with all the "revelations" of the last few years you can't even see the despicable organisation that is your precious church for what it is.

MrP

Kinda mean, but spot on Mr P.;-)

endacl

King Mob wrote: »

Opticom wrote: »

That's not a correctly constructed argument, firstly its non sequitur logic, as your conclusion (which may be true or false) does not follow from your premises. Secondly, your premises may or may not be true, and for a conclusion to be valid the premises must be true.

So which of his premises aren't true?
That god is claimed to be omnipotent, omniscient and omni benevolent?
That there haven't been at least 15 mass extinctions?
That millions of species dying out doesn't count as suffering?

And how does the conclusion not emerge from the premises?

Why would God cause this long circuitous path to humans rather than just poofing us modern animals into existence like in the bible?
Doing it one way means that he causes suffering, therefore he could not be omni benevolent.
But if he was forced to do it that way, that means he is not omnipotent.

So why did God cause 15 mass extinctions?

Series of celestial brainfarts. Jebus' aul fella was messing about in the godshed. We were actually supposed to be a spice rack. The mass extinctions were earlier attempts.

Dades

Opticom wrote: »

Ok, I think I understand your argument, it's a version of the problem of natural evil.

So, with your knowledge of the chain of evolutionary events, how would man and the natural world as we know it exist today if these natural 'mass' extinctions were not permitted ? Was there an alternative non theistic evolutionary process, and if so what was it ?

Was there an alternative to the most random, messy, arbitrary, lengthy, painful process of producing the species you wanted to communicate with? If someone can create an entire universe from scratch, then yes.

It just does not compute AT ALL.

Opticom

Dades wrote: »

Was there an alternative to the most random, messy, arbitrary, lengthy, painful process of producing the species you wanted to communicate with? If someone can create an entire universe from scratch, then yes.

It just does not compute AT ALL.

So, scientifically, given infinity, how should evolution have happened instead ?

Wereghost

MagicMarker wrote: »

The standard religious response to this is that God exists outside of time. So millions of years to us is nothing to God.

Makes sense I guess....

It does, but it's a revisionist view and arguably anti-canonical. IMO, at best it makes the zillion-year delays arbitrary but fails to give a reason for them.

Dades

Opticom wrote: »

So, scientifically, given infinity, how should evolution have happened instead ?

I think the main point is why use evolution at all?

If the intent is to creat man in your image, why have them evolve from primordial soup over eons instead of just creating homo sapiens?

Please don't invoke a mysterious ways argument!

Wereghost

"If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever."
Woody Allen summarises it nicely.

Opticom

Dades wrote: »

I think the main point is why use evolution at all?

If the intent is to creat man in your image, why have them evolve from primordial soup over eons instead of just creating homo sapiens?

Please don't invoke a mysterious ways argument!

Why would an infinite being be bothered about how long something took ?
Why did it all start with an infinitely small 'big bang' that after 1 millionth of a second had created a universe the size of our solar system ?
Why is the universe is still expanding at the speed of light ?

Opticom

Deleted User wrote: »

Turtwig

Opticom wrote: »

Why would an infinite being be bothered about how long something took ?
Why did it all start with an infinitely small 'big bang' that after 1 millionth of a second had created a universe the size of our solar system ?
Why is the universe is still expanding at the speed of light ?

I'd love to respond to this thread in more detail (the fourth fricking thread in A&A at this stage ) but don't really have the time at the mo. In any case, the universe is expanding faster than the speed of the light.

fitz0

Is it just me or does A&A feel a lot like this lately?



Yay gifs.

EDIT: Not to diss your thread MisterEpicurus, I think you raise a valid point. It's the same old same old in response that is the cat in this A&A box.

Dades

Opticom wrote: »

Why would an infinite being be bothered about how long something took ?
Why did it all start with an infinitely small 'big bang' that after 1 millionth of a second had created a universe the size of our solar system ?
Why is the universe is still expanding at the speed of light ?

Why are you replying to my post with nonsense questions that only support the notion of unguided life?

"Why would an infinite being be bothered about how long something took ?"

That's not a rebuttal. It's fast approaching the mysterious ways argument is what it is. Unless this god took pleasure in watching entire species gradually go extinct (take THAT dinosaurs!)... IT MAKES NO SENSE.

Opticom

Opticom wrote: »

Why would an infinite being be bothered about how long something took ?
Why did it all start with an infinitely small 'big bang' that after 1 millionth of a second had created a universe the size of our solar system ?
Why is the universe is still expanding at the speed of light ?

Because a finite amount of suffering is still a bad thing.
And god being all knowing and all loving would know this and be able to detect it.
And if he was all powerful there would be no reason at all for him to create the universe in such a way. If he was all powerful he could have just magiced the universe into existence fully formed like depicted in the bible.

If he couldn't do this, he is not all powerful.
If he could do this, then he did not and therefore is not all loving.
If he did that but really did care able all life but couldn't notice it or thought it was insignificant, then he is not all knowing.

So which is it?

Opticom

Dades wrote: »

Why are you replying to my post with nonsense questions that only support the notion of unguided life?

"Why would an infinite being be bothered about how long something took ?"

That's not a rebuttal. It's fast approaching the mysterious ways argument is what it is. Unless this god took pleasure in watching entire species gradually go extinct (take THAT dinosaurs!)... IT MAKES NO SENSE.

Grand. Tell us what alternative makes sense, how should evolution have happened ?

MisterEpicurus

Opticom wrote: »

Grand. Tell us what alternative makes sense, how should evolution have happened ?

I was about to go to bed but after reading your evasiveness, I felt compelled to reply. :eek:

You can't look to us for answers on how to make a Universe with evolution, how obvious does that have to be. We don't need to provide a satisfactory answer to that to rebut the proposal that we're expected to believe.

Even if we had no solutions to this problem, the believer is still left with the problem of how he squares the facts that have been elucidated throughout this thread. You merely pass the problem onto us.

Are you conceding defeat by any chance?

Opticom

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I was about to go to bed but after reading your evasiveness, I felt compelled to reply. :eek:

You can't look to us for answers on how to make a Universe with evolution, how obvious does that have to be. We don't need to provide a satisfactory answer to that to rebut the proposal that we're expected to believe.

Even if we had no solutions to this problem, the believer is still left with the problem of how he squares the facts that have been elucidated throughout this thread. You merely pass the problem onto us.

Are you conceding defeat by any chance?

Your remaining argument now seems to be that theistic evolution, from atheist point of view makes no sense to you, that's understandable as you believe there is no God.

What I don't understand, is the added assertion that theistic evolution, in order to be true, should have occurred differently, so I don't think its unreasonable to ask how should it have occurred, other than the way it did ?

Opticom

Opticom wrote: »

What I don't understand, is the added assertion that theistic evolution, in order to be true, should have occurred differently, so I don't think its unreasonable to ask how should it have occurred, other than the way it did ?

We're saying that theistic evolution would not occur as there would be no reason for it. For evolution to occur there would be vast suffering of various life forms with the vast majority of species not surviving.

God could just make everything as it is via magic as he's all powerful.
No need for suffering or dying.

But instead you believe that he created everything in a way that makes it look exactly like he played no part?

Dades

I really don't understand what the difficulty here is.

If "God" created us (homo sapiens) with a view to being the chosen species he had plans (and rules) for, why do it over a millions of years instead of just creating us as humans from the outset.

Opticom

King Mob wrote: »

God could just make everything as it is via magic as he's all powerful. No need for suffering or dying.

So, am I right in saying that for God to exist, he should have just magiced us and entire universe into existence instantly with the big bang and skipped evolution, and made everything immortal. Fair enough. If you lived in a world like that, would you accept that was then proof of God's existence ? Would you have any choice ?

I see creation and human life as an ongoing event, still occurring, as the expansion of the universe continues.

Duggys Housemate

The atheist forum covering itself in glory, once again, I see. The OP gets a dig in with a straw man attack on religions, and nobody questions his claim of fifteen mass extinctions in 100,000 years, necessary for the survival of homo sapiens. What were they?