God is a substance, not a Person.
God is three Persons, triune, with relational attributes and interactions. Something that is merely “a substance” does not, so your claiming to be ‘Christian’ is idiosyncratic (your favorite word 
) and false.
1 Like
Have you studied any theology at all?
Materialists generally find any kind of association with Creationist, even those who hold to Evolution, unacceptable. They view the terms as mutually exclusive. Materialist Evolution assumes some type of closed system of natural laws that do not include an intelligent mind and/or god only natural patterns of coherence and consistency that are the natural laws. No god or intelligent agency is seen to be upholding, required or behind the order in nature. Hence, either Theistic Evolution boils down to a matter-energy based evolution (Material Evolution) or something else. If it is something else, it has to be clearly stated what this something else is. From what I’ve ever seen, Theistic Evolutionists have a great deal of trouble saying what this something else is - they never clearly state anything. They have to differentiate their ideas from Material Evolutionists without falling into the god of the gaps explanations and some type of Creationism that goes beyond YEC and Intelligent Design that includes and exceeds modern Evolutionary theory. This is very problematic because Materialist Evolution would seem to afford them no room for any type of god whatsoever and in no need of anything else.
More people, including Christians, would be inclined to accept their ideas if they could clearly state them, clearly differentiate them from Material Evolution, and clearly show how to test them to show they provide a better model for the created/natural order than Material Evolution. This I have not seen in anything approaching a clear framework.
1 Like
Hi, Brian. And welcome to the forum!
Can you give me an example of how a Christian meteorologist (there are a few I’m sure!) can clearly distinguish their Christian forecasts from those given by any of their completely materialistic colleagues? When you can tell us how the Christian forecaster differentiates their analysis from that of their less theistic colleagues, then we can talk about how “EC science” should look different from ordinary science.
An orderly universe governed by God’s created natural laws.
If there is a closed system of natural laws, then evolution should be predictable, but it is not Therefore this assumption is false.
If evolution is structured by patterns of coherence and consistency that can be rationally understood, then these must be natural patterns must be grounded in the rational mind of the Creator, because Nature cannot think. Only the rational can create rationality., not randomicity…
Material Evolution has failed to scientifically explain Natural Selection, so it has failed on its own terms. Evolutionary Creationism based on ecological change is the best scientific explanation of evolution and clarifies how God guides God’s Creation.
Who says that this is true? That is not a scientific statement. It is certainly not backed by scientific evidence.
You appear to have failed to note that I said merely and thus implicitly only inanimate substance and no features of personhood or life. That may be what you believe God is, but then I should be the one asking you that question.
Do you know anything at all about God’s relating to people personally, individually, in real space and time, except that, according to you, he cannot?
1 Like
Hi Mervin.
Thank you for the welcome.
I have studied these types of things for a very long time. YEC is obviously problematic because too many unacceptable assumptions have to made within science and theology/religion to account for its shortcomings. Intelligent design has not demonstrated a workable research program that is an alternative to the current Evolutionary paradigm as it promised, EC science isn’t accepted within mainstream science and can’t seem to show how god is clearly necessary and mainstream Evolutionary theory still seems inadequate to account for everything. I suspect that a more universal theory is necessary.
Christian meteorologist is a red herring. The two are two mutually exclusive things. Meteorologists use mathematics, and laws from physics and chemistry to construct their models. A god would be unnecessary except perhaps to get the whole process started (such as create the laws in the first place). However, within a materialist philosophy, everything is accounted for and so a god is not necessary including for setting up laws or getting the process going in the first place. With the success of modern science to explain natural occurrences without “god of the gaps” explanations (basically explanations that are an appeal to magical solutions and thinking on things people are ignorant about) it has encouraged people to look for process and systemic natural based explanations involving only mathematics, matter and energy.
EC Science has to demonstrate both a need for its explanations and a framework to make testable predictions that could differentiate it from Materialistic Evolution and Materialist Science. I have not seen such explanations or framework that would encourage anyone to move away from ME or either YEC or ID.
Francis Collins states 6 premises on which EC rests. Only two of them would relate to any question of god - the third (fine tuned universe) and sixth (moral nature of people and search for god). Both of these would be considered inadequate problems to appeal to god by the majority of scientists. The sixth would be a “god of the gaps” explanation for what we don’t understand about human psychology and cultural anthropology. However, scientists would say that we do have an adequate understanding for both of these from a Evolutionary perspective (currently Evolutionary Psychology does seem to provide adequate and acceptable explanations). I would say the third is, as of yet, unresolved. However, many scientists would say that explanations, such as the many world’s interpretation of quantum mechanics combined with a world where sentient life is able to observe, provides at least a reasonable explanation without a need for another “god of the gaps” explanation.
Hence, most scientists would see EC Science as redundant and unnecessary to understanding nature and a carry over from a more primitive and less developed time in human history.
1 Like
Hi Ron,
Unfortunately this is not an explanation - a clear statement in a scientific context would outline how EC Science could differentiate itself from ME Science by a research program and testable hypothesis. The testable hypothesis would show that the EC model did a better job of accounting for the evidence by showing failure of ME Science results and positive for EC. Modern science would agree that what you refer to as an orderly universe is governed by natural laws (basically and generally a set of mathematical equations and principles that humans can understand logically that accurately predict from current to future behavior of natural processes). However, they would not necessarily agree that a god created such laws at some past time. Science believes the laws are inherent with the nature of matter and energy which are eternal. They would argue that the need for god is unnecessary and is not a necessity - or at least is not demonstrably so. If this is true, then there is “no place for a god” in the same spirit as Stephen Hawking’s rhetorical question in the same vain.
2 Likes
This is the general position of modern science. Do you see a god upholding nature? Can you describe the features of this god that are not just the use of religious and poetic language to describe purely natural phenomenon? Modern Science does not require or see an intelligent agency or god behind the universe (they don’t assume this and don’t retreat into “god of the gaps” explanations if one isn’t readily apparent). Science is not about truth (to your statement “Who says this is true?”) it is about modelling nature with explanations that continually fit the empirical data and observations in the best possible explanatory framework. Truth is a static concept - something that Philosophy is concerned about. Science is a dynamic process that continually strives to produce more comprehensive explanations and models of how the processes, parts and the whole of nature works.
1 Like
I think EC is more of a worldview statement and is not scientifically testable by any means I can think of. It may come down to what you personally find convincing and rational; both an impersonal and a purposeful universe can be daunting. To me, fine tuning and the impetus to life speaks to purpose. What if nature simply does not offer a more empirical test for a transcendent God?
The failure is entirely yours.
For the second time, the first disappeared without trace, that is a perfect oxymoron.
You are correct that fine tuning has nothing to do with chance. It has to do with the sensitivity of the universe’s ability to synthesize heavy elements on the constants, regardless of the (unknown) probability of their values. However, if you can prove it is a myth you owe it to the scientific community to publish your proof. Because there are references to in throughout the professional literature, with the common theme that it is an interesting scientific puzzle worthy of an explanation. It would be helpful for us to be able to say to one another: “Oh, haven’t you read? Klax has solved the appearance of fine tuning problem. Please move on.”
The answer is and always has been obvious, nature self tunes.
I would suggest Physical Review Letters (a tier-1 peer-reviewed journal) as a potential venue for your explanation of fine tuning.
Why? It’s obvious. Common sense. Science is irrelevant. c and a handful of other currently measured constants = God? No.
Fine tuning says nothing about God. If you simply accept it rather than study it and cavalierly leap to an explanation, then God or the multiverse both “save the appearances” (fit the data) but neither, at least at the moment, meet the standard “falsifiability” requirement for science.
Of course, due to both the inability of String Theory to connect with experiment (and Dark Matter too) and the ease with which the multiverse explains fine tuning (as easy as invoking God, but more sciency) some scientists are willing to abandon “falsifiabilty” which is tantamount (IMO) to redefining what is meant by science. I am not joining that bandwagon.
Again one doesn’t need an infinite multiverse to explain the infinitely improbable random speed of light. Absolute nothingness is inherently, naturally unstable and whatever minimally comes in to being instantiates the prevenient meaninglessly rational laws of physics. Why should half a dozen constants not emerge at the vertices of order? And no, we’ll never ‘prove’ it.