OK, George. Thanks for your answer. Are you saying the same thing in these two posts?
In one post it seems you are saying that you agree with the YEC Wesley that unguided natural processes could not produce the world/universe we live in - just like IDers doubt this.
But then, when challenged on that, you take a step back and claim to be agnostic on the issue? So which is it? Do you agree with Wesley or not?
When taking an agnostic stance, basically you are saying that even though there is no evidence for God’s existence that we can see in nature, you believe God created the heavens and the earth, right?
You don’t know whether undirected evolution could produce what we see. You prefer to remain agnostic about that - in spite of what the Bible says. (Or do you lean against that view like IDers and doubt it as you said?)
I don’t quite understand why you would bother to believe in a Creator God if you don’t think there is any evidence for His work of creation. Like I said, we call that blind faith where I come from -= belief without any evidence.
And I don’t understand how you can view God as the Creator if He did nothing and just watched blind undirected processes create the world He envisioned. I guess that out of the innumerable possible universes, the one the Creator envisioned(or do you think that He did not envision anything?) just happened to come into existence by dumb luck out. You believe that might be true?
You don’t believe in any intentionality by God? No planning, no guiding, no miracles, no nothing?
And if not, why even believe in God? You don’t need Him and besides, there is no evidence He even exists!
With a view like that, how in the world could you ever defend your faith? Why should anyone believe in God if there is no evidence for His existence? Do you think God wants us all simply to have blind faith like you?
George, does the Bible have anything whatsoever to do with your beliefs? If so, how in the world can you reconcile your view of god with how God reveals Himself to us in Scripture?
This is very interesting!
Oh, and one more thing:
George, you are not much different than IDers. You have just admitted that you do not even know if this is possible, right? IDers do not know either, but they think that from all the evidence, it is not possible. That is a legitimate conclusion, is it not? If you think it is more scientific to remain agnostic on the issue, that is fine, but when it comes down to it, you don’t even know if it is possible, yet you choose to believe it? Oh, right. You are agnostic about that.
SO, if you don’t even know if it is possible, the idea that it might not be possible would fit nicely with what the Bible says about evidence for God in nature, right? Given there is no conclusive evidence either way in your eyes, that would be one possible view of the data would it not?