If you are a Christian, do you believe

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

And you really can’t resist proving my point for me, can you!

But no. I’m not gonna take that bait any more. You can feign ignorance about the broad sweep of what somebody means with the phrase “free will”, 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.

What point is that Merv?

What astounds me is that every time I ask for an example, no one can give one.

[marvin (Christian Sceptic)]

" The purpose of the Krebs Cycle is to collect (eight) high-energy electrons from these fuels by oxidising them, which are transported by…"

A dice game is not a random process as it follows rules other than chance. even if it uses chance as an input variable.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

So, the Krebs cycle has intent?

Chance is necessity.

[Kendel]

This is the best approximation I could put together with the limited time I had. Please, correct anything I’ve misunderstood.
Sorry for the lack of stylistic elegance. Sometimes simplicity is all I’ve got.

Assuming God is real, because of the proposition that Jesus was He incarnate, the God of the Bible is 99.9…% a God we made and continuously piously make up, progressively with His connivance.

Let’s assume God is real, based on the proposition that Jesus was God incarnate. The God of the Bible is still 99.9% made up by our pious imaginations, and we continue to add to the fiction at the behest of the god we have fabricated.

Of course He sustains, ‘thinks’ creation. Period. Always has from eternity. Always will.

Of course this god we fabricated in our minds brings creation about through his thoughts, that is, our human imaginations. That’s all this god can do. That’s how this god always has operated and always will – as a figment of human minds.

He has a telos beyond nature and that is nature’s telos. It manifests not even that.

He has a purpose outside of nature, which is given to him by the naturally occurring human minds that fabricated him. He is unable to carry out his purpose, because it is fabricated in our minds (and therefore doesn’t exist, as he doesn’t exist).

If there is supernature, nature is its seed bed.

If the supernatural exists, it exists fictively, because natural human minds fabricated it.

God is not in the slightest bit theistic, bar in and around incarnating in it, in nature, apart from grounding it from eternity.

God is not god at all, except in that god exists in the minds of the natural humans, who created him. Therefore god is not the ground of nature from all eternity.

He is theistic beyond nature and as nature.

God is god outside of nature, that is not at all, and as a product of naturally occurring human minds.

His ‘intervention’ is in that there would be no nature if He didn’t. And as creatures. One per sapient species.

The god humans fabricated intervenes in nature in that we humans believe he does. And we have as a species designated him as our creator.

Belief cannot change the reality, if any, of that. Metaphor can’t change it. Beyond nature He wills transcendent creation.

Our belief and metaphors cannot change any of these facts. Humans created god and the supernatural. Therefore humans as “creation” transcend the god they believe to be supernatural.

As ever. God’s 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 always, god’s interaction with creation is by the human mind that imagined god to exist, imagined god to be giving creation substance, imagined god to be sustaining it, imagined god to be incarnating in it (becoming Jesus), imagined god to be giving substance to the church and imagined god to be yearning along with the the church (or creation?).

As in the rest of nature, nothing about human behaviour needs explaining by divine intervention.

As with the rest of nature, which is self-existent, nothing about human behaviour needs explaining by divine intervention. It is understood by scientific means.

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.

I am not aware of any other tools for acquiring knowledge about God than the amount of reason each individual has available, but which is subjugated to each individual’s passions. This is a reference to Hume.

And yeah, as Alexey says, what on Earth is free will?

Reference to Forum member Alexey’s question.

All a bit Cartesian isn’t it?

It’s all completely self-referential, isn’t it, referring to the DeCarte’s logical starting point: I think, therefore I am.
Analogously: God exists, because I think he does.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

Sorry to put you through so much effort.

I’ll edit this on the go.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Kendel

Assuming God is real, because of the proposition that Jesus was He incarnate, the God of the Bible is 99.9…% a God we made and continuously piously make up, progressively with His connivance.

Let’s assume God is real, based on the proposition that Jesus was God incarnate. The God of the Bible is still 99.9% made up by our pious imaginations, and we continue to add to the fiction at the behest of the god we have fabricated.

Yep.

@Kendel

Of course He sustains, ‘thinks’ creation. Period. Always has from eternity. Always will.

Of course this god we fabricated in our minds brings creation about through his thoughts, that is, our human imaginations. That’s all this god can do. That’s how this god always has operated and always will – as a figment of human minds.

NO!!!

We’re assuming He’s real. Because He operated as Jesus. Because He now Zens with us. Anything and everything we say about Him beyond that is stuff we make up.

@Kendel

He has a telos beyond nature and that is nature’s telos. It manifests not even that.

He has a purpose outside of nature, which is given to him by the naturally occurring human minds that fabricated him. He is unable to carry out his purpose, because it is fabricated in our minds (and therefore doesn’t exist, as he doesn’t exist).

Er, we’re assuming He’s real, marimba? Therefore nature’s existence is purposed. Nature of itself has no purpose. Nature’s purpose is in supernature. Transcendence. This happens every time anything suffers to death.

@Kendel

If there is supernature, nature is its seed bed.

If the supernatural exists, it exists fictively, because natural human minds fabricated it.

Assuming etc, nature fulfils a purpose that supernature cannot. Supernature cannot breed. If it could, there’d be no need for nature.

@Kendel

God is not in the slightest bit theistic, bar in and around incarnating in it, in nature, apart from grounding it from eternity.

God is not god at all, except in that god exists in the minds of the natural humans, who created him. Therefore god is not the ground of nature from all eternity.

Assuming… And He only ‘intervenes’ in His own thinking, being, by grounding all other being. And incarnating in it. And Zenning with it. And transcending it; raising, gathering it up in supernature.

@Kendel

He is theistic beyond nature and as nature.

God is god outside of nature, that is not at all, and as a product of naturally occurring human minds.

Assuming… Nature cannot be outside God. Nothing is. Apart from a possible infinity of other Gods of course. Nature is an aspect of God.

@Kendel

His ‘intervention’ is in that there would be no nature if He didn’t. And as creatures. One per sapient species.

The god humans fabricated intervenes in nature in that we humans believe he does. And we have as a species designated him as our creator.

Assuming… He intervenes good and proper by incarnating as every species that can register the fact from eternity.

@Kendel

Belief cannot change the reality, if any, of that. Metaphor can’t change it. Beyond nature He wills transcendent creation.

Our belief and metaphors cannot change any of these facts. Humans created god and the supernatural. Therefore humans as “creation” transcend the god they believe to be supernatural.

Assuming… If He’s real, we transcend.

@Kendel

As ever. God’s 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 always, god’s interaction with creation is by the human mind that imagined god to exist, imagined god to be giving creation substance, imagined god to be sustaining it, imagined god to be incarnating in it (becoming Jesus), imagined god to be giving substance to the church and imagined god to be yearning along with the the church (or creation?).

Assume… God is real despite our declarations of Him.

@Kendel

As in the rest of nature, nothing about human behaviour needs explaining by divine intervention.

As with the rest of nature, which is self-existent, nothing about human behaviour needs explaining by divine intervention. It is understood by scientific means.

Even assuming… that nature actually isn’t self-existent, yes.

@Kendel

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.

I am not aware of any other tools for acquiring knowledge about God than the amount of reason each individual has available, but which is subjugated to each individual’s passions. This is a reference to Hume.

Yep.

@Kendel

And yeah, as Alexey says, what on Earth is free will?

Reference to Forum member Alexey’s question.

All a bit Cartesian isn’t it?

Yep.

@Kendel

All a bit Cartesian isn’t it?

It’s all completely self-referential, isn’t it, referring to the DeCarte’s logical starting point: I think, therefore I am.
Analogously: God exists, because I think he does.

Yep. But He might do regardless.

I wish He would.

[Kendel]

@Klax, Martin, thank you for taking the time to go over my stuff and providing corrections. Other reading related to irony and sarcasm seem to be affecting all my reading.
Of course I still have questions, but they’ll wait for (hopefully) after more sleep.

[marvin (Christian Sceptic)]

purpose: the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.
“the purpose of the meeting is to appoint a trustee”

logic is necessity

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

Exactly. Evolution, the eternal multiverse, existence have no manifest purpose, no teleology, no directionality, and no necessity of being purposed. Stream hydrodynamics needs no naiad. Logic needs no thinker.

What happened to a person that they have to clap words with one hand?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

If you are a Christian, do you believe that the telos of the universe is to increase God’s familial joy through Jesus and to magnify who God is.

Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Hebrews 12:2

[jim1 (Jim Wade)]

Life by itself may not prove that God exists, but a universe that is exquisitely tuned with all the elemental raw materials and conditions that make conscious life possible, should be proof enough for even the most jaded skeptic.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

The jaded skeptic will just say of course it has those parameters, otherwise we wouldn’t be here.

I do like this reply to the self-selection effect though:

…it is said that we only find ourselves in a universe that permits life, therefore we shouldn’t be surprised to find it having the characteristics we do.

Imagine, however, trying to explain the finely-tuned arrangements of your own home this way. “I would never consider the unique characteristics of my home unless I were living in it so of course I will notice these details.” But that is not finally an explanation for the house or the details. Why this house rather than no house at all? Saying “I’m living in it” does not offer any explanatory scope or power as to how the house came about in the first place or why the numbers behind it are the way they are.

Penrose just seems to say, “Well, I find the house very curious and convenient, but beyond that, I don’t know. It is a puzzle the plumbing is just right, or the oven works so uncannily well or that the lights are just the right brightness or the electricity is channeled throughout the house in such a remarkably useful way. Maybe some sort of science fiction story might finally provide an answer, but I don’t know.”

source

 
It won’t change any jaded skeptics, but it may help someone who is beginning to have ears to hear or whose heart is beginning to be softened enough to grow some good seed.

[jim1 (Jim Wade)]

Life itself may not prove that God exists, but a universe that is exquisitely tuned with all the elemental raw materials and conditions that make self - conscious life possible, should be proof enough for even the most jaded skeptic. Alas, it should be, but it isn’t. Scientific careers are at stake.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@jim1

Life by itself may not prove that God exists, but a universe that is exquisitely tuned with all the elemental raw materials and conditions that make conscious life possible, should be proof enough for even the most jaded skeptic.

Big canyon, delayed echo. ; - )
 

@jim1

Scientific careers are at stake.

I think that is disingenuous of you to infer disingenuousness of legitimate scientists. We still have Psalm 19, which the scientific method cannot speak to, can it.
 

The heavens declare the glory of God,
    and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech,
    and night to night reveals knowledge.
 
Psalm 19:1-2

[jim1 (Jim Wade)]

I think that there are many scientists who recognize the improbability that the cosmos and

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@jim1

the improbability that the cosmos and [… ?]

(Something truncated that – I don’t know if it was a copy and paste issue or if your train of thought got derailed, or… ; - )

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@jim1

Life by itself may not prove that God exists, but a universe that is exquisitely tuned with all the elemental raw materials and conditions that make conscious life possible, should be proof enough for even the most jaded skeptic.

Not proof in the technical sense, but supporting evidence that will be meaningful to some. Jaded skeptics can make things fit their narratives too though. No Christian apologetic argument is a logical slam dunk. At some point, faith is a gift and not everyone encounters God in a way that leads to faith. Why that is the case is one of my most pressing questions.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

I guess you know a discussion thread for Penner’s postmodern book on (actually against) Christian apologetics begins tomorrow. I think he thinks exemplifying Christianity will go a lot further toward apologetics than crafty logic puzzles delivered with a swagger. I’ll bet you read it long ago.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@jim1

Life by itself may not prove that God exists, but a universe that is exquisitely tuned with all the elemental raw materials and conditions that make conscious life possible, should be proof enough for even the most jaded skeptic.

The infinity of universes from eternity, the fact of nature, are the output of its harmonic self tuning in the keys of c, e, G & h. Not magic. Invoking God as the ground of being explains nothing at all and makes matters infinitely worse. If jaded sceptic means intellectually honest questioner, against desire, then I have no option but to aspire to that. What else could jaded mean?

[jim1 (Jim Wade)]

I think that there are many scientists and informed laymen and laywomen that are intrigued by the fact that the universe is so fine tuned for the existence of self-reproductive life within it. Most people are familiar with the often referred to fact that even if the seemingly most insignificant physical parameter of the universe was just a little different, life could not exist. It is a bit like the historic controversy around quantum mechanics. The math works perfectly so don’t concern yourself about what is actually going on. Hugh Everett’s many worlds theory has found purchase in the view of many physicists although it requires an act of faith. My point is that the evidence is overwhelming that our existence is not accidental. Without self - aware consciousness, the universe would have no meaning.