This would apply:
3 Likes
Assuming God is real, because of the proposition that Jesus was He incarnate, the God of the Bible is 99.9ā¦% a God we made and continuously piously make up, progressively with His connivance. Of course He sustains, āthinksā creation. Period. Always has from eternity. Always will. He has a telos beyond nature and that is natureās telos. It manifests not even that. If there is supernature, nature is its seed bed. God is not in the slightest bit theistic, bar in and around incarnating in it, in nature, apart from grounding it from eternity. He is theistic beyond nature and as nature. His āinterventionā is in that there would be no nature if He didnāt. And as creatures. One per sapient species. Belief cannot change the reality, if any, of that. Metaphor canāt change it. Beyond nature He wills transcendent creation. As ever. Godās interaction with creation is by the Spirit, in instantiating and sustaining it, in incarnating in it, instantiating the Church, and yearning along with it. As in the rest of nature, nothing about human behaviour needs explaining by divine intervention. I am not aware of any other tools for acquiring knowledge about God than the minority reason He invites us to use and the overwhelming majority of subjective emotion of our natures. And yeah, as Alexey says, what on Earth is free will? All a bit Cartesian isnāt it?
Forgive me, what is to say that your description of God is not a pious fiction? I mean no offence, it is a genuine question.
2 Likes
Nothing. And whatās to forgive Liam? Darn good question I shoulda seen cominā. Guilty as charged I reckon. But minimally so. My pious fiction ignores all other fiction. All the he said, she said. It just deals with one pious proposition and its rational consequences.
1 Like
Fair enough. At least you are honest about it 
.
I donāt know anybody here who isnāt!
1 Like
Are you serious?
ever considered the outcome of the process and what it has lead to? If you play a game involving dice which involves a rule, is the outcome random or is the outcome controled by the rule? you might consider the chances of the players to be fair by the randomisation of the input variables, but the outcome of the game is governed by strategy as in knowing better which dice to retain over multiple throws.
If you have not yet worked out the purpose of the process given the observed outcome it has lead towards and considering the way the feedback loop works I canāt really help you
strategy, would you call the outcome random of are there players who win this by applying strategy?
Itās you who isnāt serious. The outcome of a non-behavioural process is not its purpose. Rivers donāt flow to make the sea salty. Hydrogen doesnāt fuse in the sun to make the sun shine. I donāt need the āhelpā youāre utterly failing to provide, apart from to make my point even starker. And the dice game, like life, isnāt either or. There is no strategy in evolution.
So itās a good thing that believers donāt try to locate it there. Rather, we find purpose in the mind/will of God.
Bingo! Most believers, Klax, assume that God is real - and for us that means God isnāt just something we made up (though we can certainly wrongly make up stuff about God). We also live as if (and thoroughly believe) that we have choice and agency granted us by our very real God. Your continuous denial of that notwithstanding; as if such a thing must be proven on your terms before its existence can be accepted. Besides, asking for it to be shown or demonstrated or ādefinedā for you is like asking for a square circle. If we could fully encompass it for complete analysis and delivery to you as some packaged good for your inspection, then we would have disproven its existence. Think what you want of the convenience of believing in something that disappears the moment you try to stare directly at it. But belief is not one whit disturbed by the acknowledgment that freewill will not do something, that - if it did - would cause it to fail to be itself.
4 Likes
Yep, I know it well.
You canāt avoid the honesty can you : )
Sorry, my denial of what? I agree with everything youāre saying so far. I donāt deny what you believe, what you assume, what meanings you ascribe,
What thing? That what you believe, assume, your meanings about reality? I donāt deny any of those. The subjective is as real as it gets.
And now, here, your logic disappears in a puff of rhetoric, like Lewisā. Iām not aware of asking you anything. Have I forgotten?
Iām sorry mate, this gets weirder and weirder. Whatās freewill again? All incredibly subjective this isnāt it? Untransferable too. Iām sure itās all meaningful for you. But it doesnāt correspond with my thinking in the slightest.
Well - I guess chalk it all up to me misunderstanding you then!
Itās just that when people respond to discussions about things like free will, and your response includes phrases like āWhat free will?ā - most listeners of ordinary English would understand that to mean you are skeptical that they have anything of the sort. Sort of like if somebody speaks to me of all their money, and I ask āwhat money?ā - if they want me to believe they are wealthy, they might then feel obliged to ādemonstrate their holdingsā to me. But Iām glad I misunderstand you in all this, and that you apparently then are quite satisfied to cavort along with all the rest of us believers here who make real choices in life, and try to live in faithful relationship to a real God whose existence transcends our own.
2 Likes
I have no idea what free will is. Does God have it? Can you give me an example of a believerās real choice?
And you really canāt resist proving my point for me, can you! 
But no. Iām not gonna take that bait any more. You can feign ignorance about the broad sweep of what somebody means with the phrase āfree willā, but I have no share in your doubts on that front, nor any need to attempt satisfying you with impossible definitions of it. Good luck with all that.
1 Like
Based on the responses so far, I think you might be setting up a false dichotomy which says that either God created the universe, life, and intelligence, or that evolution did and God at most just wound up the the mechanism that led to the world as we see it today and then walked away. I believe that God is always creating and working in the world. Sometimes he does it through ways we understand. That is what we call science. Sometimes he does it through ways we do not yet understand. That is what we call miracles. I do not think that miracles are violations of natural law as much as God operating through nature in ways that we are not yet able to because we do not understand the universe the way that God does. I do not claim to know how God works in the world, but that is my understanding based on scripture and the broader Christian tradition.
The way that I would evade the logic that God tried to hide his role in the creation of the universe is to say that God did not hide his role at all. He simply did not create it in the way that we might have expected a deity to create.
The quintessential quality of being human is being capable of making morally significant choices. The most essential one is whether to accept (Christ) God on his terms.
I do think there is something real and important about what has given rise to God belief. Saying more is tough as even God could only describe himself as being that which He is without further elaboration. So at the very least I think you would first need to establish which particular theological Christian approach presents God on His own terms. It would help if you can also shed some light on why every other wisdom tradition can and should be ignored. If there is some reason to think this has all been authoritatively settled apart from wanting to believe it so, Iād like to know what that is. I think the desire to accept God on his own terms is too important to make as a snap decision without a personal attempt to vouchsafe what we can about those terms directly.
How do you recommend doing that?
One thing that can be done, and this follows Markās remark:
Like troubleshooting a complex system it helps to isolate major parts to understand what works and what doesnāt. Identifying which traditions deny any redemptive quality to personal desire or any personal nature to God himself is an important first step.
Beyond that, Jesusā mission for sinners and not the righteous is telling for someone who has no illusions about their sinful desires. The gift of a righteousness not based on your good deeds is so amazing, and yet itās incredible how unique it is to the Gospel.
1 Like
Forgiveness is a way bigger part of Christianity than other faiths, as well ā Godās forgiveness of us through Jesus and us forgiving each other.
1 Like
What terms are they? Have you made a morally significant choice recently? One where nobody knew?