Response to Diacorda's ". . . A critique"

[Weltenweber]

A very interesting video, I enjoyed it very much.

I was especially fascinated by your idea that our destructive behaviour toward the ecosystem could be explained in Christian theology with original sin.

I wondered if you are familiar with the oxygen catastrophe about 2.4 billion years ago which also led to mass extinction on an even broader scale and if you would regard this as a natural example of a destructive force within a former stable ecosystem.

[DonsonJack]

Excellent video, i wish more Theistic people like you would be posting in youtube, instead ´literalists´ ?

I also hope that "typical" atheist ´arguments´ or style of arguing does not get to you.

I should know this, since im atheist myself...or agnostic...who knows.

Excellent points Pastor, especially the fact that there are limits to explanatory power of science when we move to some other level than existential level...so to speak.

However i think Diacora meant something different

[stbenedictsomerville]

Thanks so much for your comments.

[Jeremias1111]

An btw: I do not agree to your definition of miracles.

While it is clear (but untestable) that miracles occur through divine intervention, being "outside the understanding of current science" can not be a proper criterion to identify miracles.

What science can not understand, i.e. explain yet is just this: unexplained. A miracle is much more than unexplained. It contradicts our understanding of the natural world.

[Jeremias1111]

Regarding the miracles you present God of the Gap variant.

Instead of pointing to something unknown and saying "God did it", you point to the (presumably) unknowable.

But if it can not be known how an event occurs, your claim that this one is a miracle will for ever be a mere assertion.

[Jeremias1111]

I think the high extinction rate cause by humans can be explained without referring to an "Original Sin".

To put it shortly: The ability of human societies to alter the environment precedes the notion of unwanted side-effects. Economical and political interests delay the implementation once a solution is found.

[MercifulMing]

If you believe that God intervened on behalf of your friend and their cancer, and that dilligent prayer played a part in that, what are we to make of all the cases he does not intervene in, no matter how noble the cause or how hard people pray about it?

[mjr256]

There are numerous examples given by leading Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins both on YouTube & in his books where he explains this misconception that Evolution is a chance process, refuting this old monkey's typing shakespeare, wind making a working Boeing 747 metaphor thing. I can even recommend specific YT videos.

[mjr256]

Why must there be a god at all? Some1 going to a doctor & coming out "cured" is not a miracle. How about some1 show me an example of God magically curing an amputee, something that can't be explained rationally. This is a god of the gaps argument. Further, nothing short of special pleading could make the Abrahamic god more viable explanation as any other supernatural claim. Why not attribute miracles to leprechauns?

[banyah87]

Who is claiming that we came about randomly? Science does not claim this at all. Science does not claim that we came about by chance.

Theists who are against atheism are claiming that atheists are claiming this.

[kisstheclowns]

Can you please demonstrate the difference between chance and randomness?

[thebellster]

Question 1: Where is religion and science coming together?

Question 2: Yes there are examples of people praying and people being healed, yet why do scientific studies show that, if anything, praying causes minor harm to those being prayed for?

[MalarkeyPN]

Objection! You avoided her TAG argument entirely! Here's your rationale:

1) Diacorda is atheist (so I think)

2) atheism is anthropocentric (so you think)

3) You do not have an anthropocentric worldview

4) therefore, you don't have to respond to Diacorda's argument about the TAG

It also seems like you don't understand natural selection. It's NOT random. Mutations occur randomly, but they are SELECTED FOR when they improve fitness, not randomly.

[cednede]

Anthropocentrism is a tu quoque if you're arguing for an Abrahamic god that concerns itself with the "sins" of mankind. You proceed with appeals to authority: Chomsky, Nietzsche, etc. That "we don't know certain things" is an argument from ignorance, supporting nothing. Evolution is a red herring, with nothing to do with the premise of TAG; as is your final question. Your understanding of evolution is also flawed in its failure to recognize the incremental progression toward complex life.

[Szkeptik]

Your response to Diacorda (as I understand) is based on the arguement that miracles have a natural basis, and can be explainable within nature, we are simply not advanced/intelligent enough to understand them. But this is actually a point in favor of diacordas arguement, because you are actually saying that God cannot do His miracles in a supernatural way. So you are basicly you are describing a non-omnipotent God.

[stbenedictsomerville]

Thanks for your response. It was a great one. However, it is a misinterpretation slightly. Remember first we believe that grace builds on nature or that God works through the natural as well as the supernatural. I have a friend who was cured of throat cancer miraculously. However, something did happen on a biological level because the medium was biological as well, cancer cells among other throat cells.

[Szkeptik]

On the humanity part. We humans are a very successful achievement in nature. Nature only cares about the survival of the FITTEST. Destroying other species is not our imperfection but theirs. They are getting extinct because they are not good enough, and nature doesn't tolerate that kind of weakness.

And if we get extinct because our ignorance imbalances the biosphere than it will mean we weren't good enough eighter so nature got rid of us.

[stbenedictsomerville]

Thanks again for your response (I wrote the below first.) Survival of the fittest is not an accurate description of the evolutionary process, and few evolutionists accept it. Unlike other species that become extinct, we would become extinct by our own hand, not by a natural process.

[TheFallibleFiend]

Not surprisingly, I think you're a smart guy, but I'm not sure how well you understand evolution. OTOH, while understanding can enable belief, it does not cause it. Evolution has never been perfect, ecologies are never perfect. One stupid thing I did as a kid was play with a microscope. I got some melted snow water and watched the paramecia grow. Every day there were more, as well as other creatures I do not recall. Then suddenly there was nothing my microscope could detect.

[stbenedictsomerville]

Thanks for watching my video, TFF, I do understand evolution well. The question here is how can this ecology which has yet to do so prior in millions of years of existence produce its own silver bullet in a species that cannot constrain itself to the self same ecology?

[TheFallibleFiend]

Difficult to convey my point in 500 chars. What I tried to say is that I think the silver bullet phenomenon has been repeated innumerable times on a small scale - like in my jar of snow melt where the population of paramecia increased until they couldn't any more and then they died off along with everything else in the jar. Beyond that, if evolution teaches us anything it's that there is no guarantee for survival - not for humans and not for any other species.

[stbenedictsomerville]

500 characters or less is difficult. I see your point, however, although again systematically, I find it problematic. How about doing a video response that may be less restraining (though still restaining a bit) with 10 minutes max?

[CousinoMacul]

I reject your proposition that nature without humanity is <i>perfect</i>. Our current mass extinction is hardly the first one in geologic history. Species that make their own environment worse for themselves or cause the extinction of others are (and always have been) ubiquitous.

[stbenedictsomerville]

Thank you for watching my video. You are right that our potential for mass extinction is hardly the first one in geologic history. But it is the first known one caused by one species. Others have been caused by outside agents. (i.e. asteroid) Agents that cause the extinction of other are ubiquitious and to some extent that is normal. However, our existence is the first in known history where one species endangers the entire system.

[stuart20017]

Shake the dust from your shoes Father. Help those can be saved.

[stbenedictsomerville]

Thank you for watching my video Stuart.