Sounds like the same explanation to me. They were there because Jesus chose to have them.
True, but that is not all you said.
He also chose to have them as reminders for us of his love for you and me (and maybe also to echo the words of Isaiah showing that the OT pointed to him).
Or his Father thought it necessary. There are, I think, scars that we will also bear, and our bodies will also not be where they were laid. John 20:12
But Dawkins doesnt know that we would be here without God’s help. He doesnt seem able to consider the possibility that the only reason evolutionary mechanisms work as they do is because God designed them.
His physical body was transformed in the resurrection. It is still physical but no longer subject to disease and death etc. So He was raised physically as all Christians believe.
Dawkins is so desperate not to believe in God he’d rather give credence to a theory that has no evidence - the multiverse.
He also finds it hard to understand why God would sometimes intervene, for want of a better word. He’s effectively saying to the Creator - thou shalt not intervene in thouest own creation. How dare God ‘break’ one of Dawkins commandments. Height of human arrogance.
Nope. That is not what all Christians believe. Neither you nor your church defines Christianity. What you say is in neither the Bible nor the creed of Nicea 325 AD. I certainly do not believe in magical fruit, magical golems of dust and bone made by necromancy, magical power of blood sacrifices, magical transformations, talking animals, non-physical entities operating human bodies like puppets by magic, and I certainly do not believe that God breaks the laws of nature He created in order to impress a bunch of ignorant savages who wouldn’t be able to tell the difference anyway (let alone to give religious ideologues some kind of one-up-man-ship over scientists). I believe as the apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that the resurrection is a physical/bodily resurrection not to a physical/natural body but to a spiritual body, made of the stuff of heaven and not of the dust of the earth – which Paul says cannot inherit the kingdom of God. And there simply are no bodies to be transformed because all the matter of our bodies is reabsorbed by the earth and recycled in other living organisms including other human beings.
He is certainly not so desperate to believe in Christian entitlement that He will arrogantly call God a liar in all the data God sends to us in the earth and sky. How dare he question the assumed authority of the religious to dictate to the truth to all mankind? Personally, I see no desperation not to believe in God. On the contrary He seems to me quite willing to consider the idea. He just doesn’t find the arguments made by most Christians to be very convincing. Neither do I. I believe for different reasons – in a non-magical Christianity that is.
True, but it appears that His design was possibly only necessary for the very first step(s) such as the formation of the complex RNA polymerase (or synthase more likely). After that, the rest simply happens as Darwin suggested. Evolution by the combination of random mutations, natural selection of those with better survival and/or replication followed by heritability. AT least that is one good way to view it as compatible with both God’s input and natural processes thereafter.
So you dont believe the Bible then, ok.
‘the rest simply happens’. But why does it simply happen, that is my point. The mechanisms themselves are not random.
I believe the Bible is the word of God – not the word of Peter Culbert. So no, I do not believe you have any authority to tell us what the Bible means. But if you want to say I don’t believe in the magic Bible of magical Christians then I would agree with that.
Dawkins seemed quite able to consider that possibility to me. He just hasn’t found a reason to believe it.
I don’t buy into the idea of evolution as a mechanism or a matter of design either. Evolution is simply the learning process. It is true that machines can be made to use evolutionary algorithms and the learning process. But the evolution of life is the activity of living things responding to the challenges and changes in their environment. And unlike Dawkins, I believe that environment includes God, for just because we have the ability to learn by ourselves doesn’t mean there is no teacher.
Who? Is he a celebrity of some sort?
I think God’s design is earlier, in the set up of natural law in the space-time structure of the universe. This is not to suggest anything like Deism, but only that God’s subsequent involvement is that of personal relationship rather than design – think in terms of the examples of creators of living things such as farmers, shepherds, teachers, and parents. God is not just watching – He is very much involved in events, but not as a designer, artist, or other examples of those who create non-living things. A parent does not design his children but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t design the child’s crib, bedroom, or house. But in the case of God and the universe, most things look to be a product of natural law, so it is only in the natural laws themselves do we see a likely role for design.
I was limiting my point to only the biologic necessity for intervention, and should have made my point better. For the purpose of understanding where “natural evolution” collides with limitations, I was intentionally ignoring the creation of the universe as well as the laws of physics under which we operate. That is of course relevant, but my questions relate to life’s origins. E.g. the stages (very arbitrary) begin with the first combinations that allow for prokaryotic single celled organisms. Then we move to endosymbiosis to create our eukaryotes with organelles. Then to multi-cellular stuff, then to evolution of unique body-shapes, and finally to traditional understanding of the evolution we see in the world today. There are various levels of complexity and mystery for each, but I was suggesting that the barrier that was insurmountable without God might have been the formation of the impossibly complex molecule we now know is necessary for the energy creation and use across mitochondrial membranes.
Of course none of this matters without the original creation of the universe, but my limited focus was biological. At what point(s) is something more than random mutation, chemical reaction and blind luck necessary?
My point was that I don’t think life began with some supernatural creation of prokaryotes and especially not with any divine design of DNA or RNA. These molecules are an information storage mechanisms for what self-organizing chemical systems learn and not any kind of design. Design is the difference between living organisms and machines. So, instead I would look to pre-biotic evolution and abiogenesis for the origin of such things.
That assumes that the base state of all being is pure nothing along with Being(s) capable of creating ordinary beings out of that nothingness. Starting from nothing but pure creator being(s) seems far more extravagant to me than simply assuming all that is has come from earlier states ad infinitum. Not sure what the appeal of going from nothing to something is especially when the nothing already includes a Something capable of deploying everything.
And I agree with that completely. When I arbitrarily defined the “stages”, the first few may not have required design, but only natural processes (who knows). There are now sound theories for a natural developement of a membrane and nucleotides for the first life. But at some point in the “next stage(s)” more is required and has been a complete and total to scientists. That point may have been the RNA synthases. After that point, evolution could have occurred without further intervention.
I’m not saying that there wasn’t any, just that it might have been unnecessary.
That is why I intentionally left out the very start. Whether the BB 14.8 Bya was natural or by Gods creation is a topic I ignored. Besides it is irrelevant to my point about biological evolution requirements after the first life ~4Bya.
Then you favor an infinite regress of cats. That’s a little difficult to philosophize to be real – it is just an imaginary and pretend horizon, exactly like there cannot be an infinity of things in the future, right, @heymike3? Children do make the best philosophers.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.