Joined: Feb. 2008
|Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,08:04)|
I don't think you or Reed (or the other posters who tried this approach already) have any inkling how utterly and totally unconvincing this argument would be for Christians.
You've missed the point of course. This is dealing with your claim that apparent cruelty creates an incompatibility.
It's objectively true that the god of the bible does things that appear incomprehensibly cruel by normal standards (i.e. punishing people for things that happened before they were born, exterminating animals and infants for the sins of humans, condoning the slaughter of infants in warfare, condoning genocide, rape and slavery) If those things are compatible (and reconciling them is your problem, not mine), then you have no grounds to say that some other instance of apparent cruelty necessarily create incompatibility.
Apologists go through all kinds of mental gymnastics to justify the things I mentioned. That's fine, it's their fantasy, they can reconcile it however they want... but one could easily apply similar levels of rationalization to make evolution fit too. See Dembskis bizarre hypothesis that the fall acted backwards in time! (edit: ref)
Of course, you once again ignored the main point of post, which is that it doesn't matter if you think the millions of years of suffering is incompatible or not, because they are real regardless of whether evolution is true. Your interpretation is incompatible with reality. If compatibility matters to you, you have a big problem, and it's not specifically evolution.