Tuesday, December 6, 2016
Philosophers view on God (installment two)
I want to address some replies on my first installment first.
- Yes, we know the earth had a start date through observation of planet destruction and creation. We do not know the date, but can determine that there is one.
- Lee Strobel is an investigative reporter and did write for The Chicago Tribune, who for fourteen years after high school biology believed there was no God.
- When I say “trust that there was a plan” Arieanne Yates explained it better. I cannot see the future and God is eternal. This means that he sees that sins or injustices will go punished whether we see it or not there is a punishment because He is the ideal of justice. Hitting on another point just because there is injustice does not mean his unloving. Let me put it in a parent child example. A 6 year old child steals a pair of sunglasses from a store. The alarms go off and the parent returns them after realizing that the child has picked them up. Once the two get home the child is spanked. The store manager does not see the punishment, but has confidence that there was one. The parent loves the child, but still punishes it. Because there is pain in the world does not determine that god does not exists just as a parent spanking a child does not determine that the parent does not love the child. God cries for every sin because he knows he has to punish it, but that punishment does not mean that there is not love.
- Everything so far that it has said has come true and if we ignore the aspects about God and look at events that happened such as the crucifixion, places Jesus went, and kings that lived we see that it has historical accuracy.
- Some Christians do have logical explanations for becoming Christians as in they have looked at other religions and found that Christianity provided them with truth or scientists that are looking at creation and see no other explanation. Christians have scientific, historical, and personal reasoning for conversion.
My first installment was supposed to be against God ,but I could not take my own views out of it so I have reversed my initial plans and the second installment is against God.
~~ second installment~~
The first philosopher I would like to talk about is Nietzsche who believed God was an illusion of the mind. He claimed that God was dead and that we killed him and explained this accusation by saying that “the belief in the Christian god has become unbelievable”. One his talking points was creation which is understandable because how do we talk about god without creation. In his book The Anti- Christ, Nietzsche talks about Genesis and calls out what he says are God’s blunders. He first says that man was not entertained or want to be an animal and then says that women are the serpents in their essence. We can clearly see that he does not believe in the Christian creation, but if not that creation then which one? As an atheist Nietzsche believed in evolution, but denied Darwinism. My initial response to this was how? Nietzsche called Darwin out on four components of evolution: New organs, Weak outlast strong, sexual selection, transitional forms absent.
Nietzsche wrote in his book Will to Power “Against Darwinism.—The utility of an organ does not explain its origin; on the contrary! For most of the time during which a property is forming it does not preserve the individual and is of no use to him, least of all in the struggle with external circumstances and enemies.” Then continues to say that Darwin over estimates the influence of external circumstances and that the life process moves to exploit these external circumstances.
I had trouble finding other sources on this argument, but this is the quote this website pulled “Anti-Darwin.—As regards the celebrated ‘struggle for life’, … where there is struggle it is a struggle for power … its outcome is the reverse of that desired by the school of Darwin … the weaker dominate the strong again and again—the reason being they are the great majority, and they are also cleverer. … Darwin forgot the mind.” I can see his point here with humans and other evolutions that animals have such as the monarch butterfly imitating a poisonous butterfly.
His next comment id the first one where I do not need an outside source to understand. ”Anti-Darwin … We almost always see males and females take advantage of any chance encounter, exhibiting no selectivity whatsoever.” This is exemplified by human rape and other animals that reproduce through rape.
His last confusing point was “there are no transitional forms”. Nietzsche writes “Primitive creatures are said to be the ancestors of those now existing. But a look at the fauna and flora of the Tertiary merely permits us to think of an as yet unexplored country that harbors types that do not exist elsewhere, while those existing elsewhere are missing” From what I can gather he is saying that a species as a whole will evolve and that this is wrong because we see the existence of plants change and those changes are a fork in their path.
Speaking of Darwinism, I also want to talk about his views on God which I got from this website. Early in life he entertained the thought of becoming a clergyman for the Church of England. After that he went to college to prepare to become a minister and was accepted after graduation, but he then instead went on his scientific voyage. This led to a religious voyage of sorts where he questioned religion a lot. Through the his voyage he was ridiculed by the sailors for quoting the bible and eventually gave up on the truth of the old testament. He was baffled by thinking that if God made a revelation to the Hindus would he accept them saying it was a revelation from Vishnu. Despite this disbelief he wanted to believe, but it continued to creep in. He eventually gave up on Christianity and can “hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity true.” I believe that this caused him to create and accept his broad terms for evolution and natural selection. He believes that animals are to simple to be put together by an intelligent designer. He also says that he sees more design in the variability and in natural selection than in life itself. He also finds flaws in the best argument of his time saying that the existence of God is proved by deep convictions by most people which can be experienced by most other religions.
Here are the comments on first installments: