For an all powerful, all knowing, and ever present deity the universe wouldn’t have to be any larger than our solar system if God so chose to create in a way that didn’t rely on natural processes. At least in my eyes, the question of why God created a universe that’s so big simplifies down to why did God choose to use natural processes. If God did not use natural processes, as would seem to be argued by YECs, then we are back at the question of why the universe is so big.
3 Likes
You’ve seriously never encountered that? It pops up over and over as an objection from atheists.
That just prompts the question: Why did God make such a big universe if we’re the only ones in it? After all, if life arose supernaturally, why did He only do that once?
And if we aren’t the only ones in it, why did God do that? (After all, God could make many others even in a small universe. For that matter, we could exist, with supernatural help. in a tiny universe. Or even with no dimension at all. The questions are unending.)
On the other hand, if it isn’ t the work of God, why is it so big, whether or not we;re the only ones in it?
1 Like
Please Define Evolutionary Creationism? I am finding the Biologos website articles defining it a bit vague. Im left with more questions than answers
I frankly think Adam’s difficulty is likely because he is looking for a systematic theology he can attack.
But I don’t think Biologos or Evolutionary Creationism is a theology at all let alone a systematic one.
What it is about is really quite simple. These were started by a scientist who became Christian. So the point is to simply say that one can be both. One can embrace the findings of science and also be a Christian. Many scientists who have embraced Christianity do not see a conflict. So of course Biologos and Evolutionary Creationism refute any theology or ideology which is opposed to this basic compatibility.
3 Likes
And a simplistic on at that, one that can be put on a chart, I suspect.
A Christian systematic theology begins with, circles around, and ends with the Cross. Personally, I see no problem with any scientific position that doesn’t deny the Cross; Adam sees problems with scientific positions that deny anything on his laundry list of theological points, which centers on the age of the Earth and the Old Testament sanctuary. So he shuts down when it is pointed out that good solid faithful scholars of Hebrew have concluded from Genesis 1 that the Earth is extremely ancient and the universe more ancient still.
As far as I can see, Evolutionary Creationism rests on the premise that God is faithful (and honest) and has not allowed the “Book of Nature” to be corrupted any more than the Book of Scripture.
2 Likes
It really annoys me when Christians overestimate their knowledge of things to the make the entire universe revolve around them alone. It is frankly absurd.
We don’t know if we are the only sentient life in the universe or not. I consider it possible we are the only ones, but not likely. And the structure of the universe strongly suggest that if other sentient life does exist then it is simply none of our business (completely out of our reach). I doubt that is an accident.
God is supernatural so an involvement of God in the creation of life makes it supernatural. But something which warps the probability distributions isn’t just supernatural – that is magical, an alteration of the laws of nature (which are probabilistic). But that makes no sense because God made those laws of nature. To make them and then break them is very strange inconsistency. Makes a great deal more sense that God would make the laws of nature do what He intends in the first place. And quantum physics looks to me very much like a back door through which God can participate in events without violating the laws of nature.
I think the idea that God would only pay attention to the development of life on one planet in the universe is rather ridiculous. I think it obvious that He would be involved wherever there is life.
Regardless probabilities which cannot be calculated are empty rhetoric and hot air. So the fine tuning argument is incapable of convincing any skeptic. It is justification by those who believe for the beliefs they have chosen and nothing more.
I suppose thqt would depend on the source of life. If life comes from God then he will be involved wherevefe it is. If life is “automatic”, or self contained withn the workings of the universe then the participation of God becomes less clear as does His interest.
The fact that God does not reveal Himslef in an obvious manner makes all this speculation a matter of faith rather than certainty.
Richard
None of it is “automatic” because God created the universe for the purpose of life. He will be involved because relationship is the reason He created the universe. Calling any life automatic is even more wrong – still stuck in the Deist notion of God as a watchmaker and everything as a machine. All living things grow and make choices – nothing about it is “automatic.” Participation in its own creation is the very essence of life. An insistence that everything must either be designed by God or automatic or random is just wrong (stubbornly treating everything as dead machines).
1 Like
You do not read me correctly
Richard
This wesite may be of interest, rightingamerica.net with this recent article " [The President and the Paleontologist: Jimmy Carter’s Dalliance with Creationism and Stephen Jay Gould’s Stumble in Rebutting It"
Feb 7, 2025
by Glenn Branch
2 Likes
From the article:
In light of these and similar passages, it is hardly fair for Gould to have faulted Carter for wanting to discuss the improbability of human existence.
I guess there is also such a thing as “the good argument” or “the right answer” that comes from the wrong mouth. For example, the sentence: “This may revolutionize how we think the cosmos unfolded after the big bang!” would mean one thing if coming from the mouth of a seasoned and respected astrophysicist after encountering some new evidence. And would likely (and rightly) be dismissed as another thing entirely coming from the mouth of a creationist idealogue associated with science denialist groups.
2 Likes
This appears to be n ongoing disagreement about how much God is involved in the structure and workings of creation. You hae this obsession about the “watchmaker” syndrome that is too simplistic.
However God created there are "rules2 andd "Mechanisms within Nature and the Universe by which things happen and’or change, but withing those guidelines there is lattitude or randomness that defies a rigid plan or “design”.
The fact is that, as yet, abiogenesis has aluded us. We do not seem to be able to diagnose how compinant parts become “living” or even how the DNA constructs bones, and organs etc If God is “clever” enough to have made nature “self sufficient” that does not mean He is controlling the minutia.
Scripture states that our form was specific. We can either accept that as fact or vanity. I choose to accept it as fact.Howeer I refuse to be specific about how God does / did it.
As far as I am concerend Theistic Evolution just means that God did it, not how.
RIchard
It is how science works. First we seek the simple underlying principles then this helps to find the causes for all the complications.
Nonsense. We already have the general principles and are working out all the very complex details. From there we can look for proof and ways to demonstrate things.
I don’t think so. That way lies racism, eugenics, vanity, and overemphasizing superficialities. Shape is not what makes us human.
Science has proven far better equipped for dealing with the question of how.
“Form” in that context is closer to Plato’s version than Da Vinci’s.
If indeed “likeness” in Genesis is physical, it still isn’t what makes us human. A “likeness” in the ANE wasn’t meant to literally show what a deity looked like, it was meant to express the character of the deity. Thus a given deity could be represented in different “likenesses”, which in turn means that our physical form was not specified/specific except perhaps in a very general sense.
1 Like
What do you people think about this from Scheiermacher, “The Christian Faith”
“… everything–even the most wonderful thing that happens or has happened–is a problem for scientific research; but, at the same time, when it in any way stimulates the pious feeling, whether through its purpose or in some other way, that is not in the lest prejudiced by the conceivable possibility of its being understood in the future. Moreover, we free ourselves entirely from a difficult and highly precarious task with which Dogmatics has so long laboured in vain, i.e. the discovery of definite signs which shall enable us to distinguish the false and diabolical miracle and the divine and true.”
diabolical miracle?
Isn’t this basically what the Pharisees accused Jesus of in Mark 3 and Matt 12. Jesus called this a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. What is it so terrible that they have done. They have identified good works as evil – judging them not by the goodness of what was done, calling it evil because they wanted to condemn the person doing them. And if some say it is just because they were opposed to Jesus, that would be wrong because it is contrary to what Jesus said in Matthew 12:32. The point is the God is responsible for good things by the action of the Holy Spirit in people and if you call them evil then you are blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Why is this unforgivable? It is because whole point of forgiveness is to sin no more, changing from evil to good. But if go against the plain meaning of what is good and evil, distorting it to serve your own ends, then good becomes inaccessible and forgiveness loses all meaning.
In other words… the difference between good and evil cannot be changed by saying it is a work of Beelzebub or the devil – or saying it is a work of God for that matter. The goodness of what you do is in the thing itself not in what you say the origin is, and calling a good thing evil (or an evil thing good for that matter) is an attack upon God Himself.
If you call something evil then you better know what you are talking about – ready to show how this was not a good thing at all. And attributing evil things to God (usually to make justification for them) is just as bad.
Fredrick Schleiermacher at the start of the 1800s represents a shift from dogma to experiential Christianity we can see in many Christian reform movements like the early evangelicalism of Finney. In other words, shifting Christianity from this obsession with theological arguments to understanding the power of Christ to change human lives.
More cryptic comments (criticism)?
Is that all you can do?
You didn’t even decalre which view you thought was correct (But i am guessing you disagree with me, cause you always do).
Perhaps ypu think the human form is just a random deviation?
Except that it hasn’t , in terms of genesis. Evolution develops it does not start life…
Science has limits, but it seems sciemtists are reluctant to admit them…
Do you think that science will eventually rove that God is a figment of my imagination? Because you seem to be reducing Hiis influence to being just a muse or confidante.
Richard
My initial reaction is that if by “problem”, we mean “welcomed challenge”, then I think that would represent the scientifically-animated mind at its best. Unlike so many of us overtly religious people, science welcomes mystery and new awareness of new aspects of reality. It means … more material to work with! Whereas most stereotypically ‘religious’ oriented people find mystery repellent and want to get it all nailed down into distilled certainties. …Which is the opposite of the curious (scientific) mind or the contemplative (religious) mind. Those latter two things are (I think) good sides of both science and religion. Making for a both/and situation instead of the either/or situation so beloved to fundamentalists.
There’s nothing cryptic in there:
Form: the term you chose.
In that context: i.e. of scripture, specifically Genesis 1.
Is closer to: i.e. matches the meaning of better.
Plato’s version: non-material.
Da Vinci’s: painted or carved.
Only to a shallow, binary way of thinking. Read his statement again – it doesn’t limit God at all unless you want to read that in.
Except that it has… especially in terms of genesis. Evolution explains the origin of the species in a process that began with abiogenesis. Abiogenesis explains the origin of life in a process that began with self-organizing phenomenon. Self-organizing phenomenon is explained by chaotic dynamics. In each of these we see the growth of things which do not depend on the initial conditions. Instead there are choices and further development depends on the choices which have already been made. This role of choice doesn’t only play a role in the development of life but of the universe itself in spontaneous symmetry breaking.
If a few are reluctant to admit them it is because of their philosophical prejudices. But most scientists follow where the evidence leads them and that includes leading them to the conclusion of science itself that science has its limits.
That is impossible. There are only some of the atheists who will jump on any excuse to claim such proof. But how can you be surprised at that after centuries of religious people with the same behavior, jumping on any excuse to claim they have a proof that they are right and anybody who thinks differently from them is wrong.
Vast improvement over too many thinking or claiming God provides them all the magic they need to do anything they want.