It can also mean collectively all those in Christ ends up being saved. So therefore all things work for the better of them. It’s definitely not about this life snd the nature that governs it because Christians die everyday in horrible ways. Christians end up in really bad positions every day. Christians have been tortured , along with their families until they die. Christians have been killed in mudslides, drowning because of rip currents, from covid, and animal attacks. So it seems the better is not about the quality of this life but the hope in the resurrection.
1 Like
The universe is unique just like the infinity of others from eternity. Mediocre. Nothing special at all. If nature can exist, then it’s conducive to accumulating complexity in so far as it continues to exist. If nature can exist then all of the self tuning follows, very likely to the same values. Those who argue against that are being irrational and unscientific in each direction.
It definitely is and you are definitely mistaken. The way one dies is irrelevant – we all die. It is more important to die well honoring God than to die easily.
Just a few verses later:
And…
…and more. There is a lot about our faith that is counterintuitive, but not irrational, in the big picture.
2 Likes
His imagination is entertaining. 
And his defamation of God will not serve him well.
That’s all irrelevant though.
The verse about all things working out is about all things working out collectively for the body of Christ because despite the crap that happens on earth they all eventually go to heaven.
It’s not about life on this earth. No one was complaining about facing persecution or sickness it just is further support that the better is not this life. All verses say the hope is in restoration.
I strongly disagree. That makes God useless and impotent in this life. He is not. Ask Maggie. Or George when you meet him, if you haven’t read about him first. Also recall about my nephrectomy, and med school.
I don’t see how you drew that conclusion. It’s beyond what I care about and as before those people’s stories hold no particular value to me and I also don’t think it’s related to the verse. The verse is talking collectively, not individually. If you disagree then it’s just that. We disagree. Nothing will change it.
Yes, I strongly disagree, based not only on my life experience, but many others. I’m sorry other Christians’ lives do not seem relevant to you.
If he is not my Father and does not work good in my life’s circumstances, than what is he? ‘Good in my life’s circumstances’ also includes good for his renown, per the prayer’s request in the first petition of the Lord’s Prayer. His providence is delightful, but not always easy.
Blessings by Laura Story
We pray for blessings
We pray for peace
Comfort for family, protection while we sleep
We pray for healing, for prosperity
We pray for Your mighty hand to ease our suffering
All the while, You hear each spoken need
Yet love is way too much to give us lesser things
'Cause what if your blessings come through raindrops
What if Your healing comes through tears
What if a thousand sleepless nights are what it takes to know You’re near
What if trials of this life are Your mercies in disguise
We pray for wisdom
Your voice to hear
We cry in anger when we cannot feel You near
We doubt your goodness, we doubt your love
As if every promise from Your Word is not enough
All the while, You hear each desperate plea
And long that we’d have faith to believe
When friends betray us
When darkness seems to win
We know that pain reminds this heart
That this is not our home
What if my greatest disappointments
Or the aching of this life
Is the revealing of a greater thirst this world can’t satisfy
What if trials of this life
The rain, the storms, the hardest nights
Are your mercies in disguise
I don’t see how you can not draw that conclusion. Is this also speaking corporately, and not individually?:
This is a great example of why many of us don’t spend much time on the Biologos forums. People apply aggressive skeptical criticism to those who question whether Evolution really is adequate, yet some shallow responses are allowed to stand utterly uncriticized.
In order:
- 1 Ad hominem. Utterly vacuous without detail. Be specific. This should have been moderated.
- 2 Straw Man. Many are skeptical of “Evolution alone” NOT because of what we don’t know and can’t do.
- 3 Understanding “getting one” and understanding the odds of the lottery are some orders of magnitude apart.
- 4 And the most ridiculous. The odds of winning the lottery do not change when someone wins.
I respect the author’s right to his opinion, and I really debated whether to get involved. Guess I couldn’t stand it. I’ll probably regret it.
Maybe it’s just because no one really presents any scientific credible reasons to be skeptical of evolution. Evolution is more supported by a wider range of fields than many things. It involves multiple areas such as genetics, biology, geology, and just about every aspect of natural history.
When I asked my question it was definitely presumed on my end that it would be answered by people who accept science and was coming from a evolutionary perspective. If something anti evolution was someone’s thought of proof as fine tuning I would honestly not be able to give it much attention. I was hoping more along the lines of something within biochemistry, or quantum sciences and ect… even debates over the development of consciousness or emotions would be great.
1 Like
It gave rise to us and hydrangeas and pigeons and bees is that not adequate?
I was criticizing the argument, not the person. That’s not an Ad hominem.
The previous poster was arguing for a supernatural origin of life based on our inability to create life in the lab. That’s a God of the Gaps argument.
I would suggest the following BioLogos article:
https://biologos.org/articles/testing-common-ancestry-its-all-about-the-mutations
That’s just it. The probabilities do change. When someone wins the lottery the probability of them winning goes to 1 in 1, because it happened.
I can use an analogy to help illustrate this fact. I can show you how to get a combination with a 1 in 8x10^67 on the very first try. That’s an 8 with 67 zeros after it. All you need to do is grab a standard deck of cards, shuffle it, and then deal out the cards one by one. The chances of you getting the order of cards you see is 1 in 52! or 1 in 8x10^67. You will get it on the very first try every time.
Of course, the real probability is 1 in 1, because it happened.
I am always open to constructive criticism.
5 Likes
That response is itself a straw man. However, the question of whether ID conflates much or all of unknown with impossible is a legitimate debate.
1 Like
The rationale of modern educated people is to lump all knowledge together and then to try to reconcile everything. Such thinking only works at the elementary levels of science. In theoretical fields of physics and math there are contradictions. In the humanities there is chaos between the strings of the accepted fluctuating knowledge. Science fiction is composed beyond the knowledge of science. History is told from the perspective and purposes of the narrator. The study of medicine is medical science, but the practice of medicine is the medical arts - not medical science. Theology is the study of deity rather than the study of the sciences. The two are not in the same category of knowledge and are not meant to be reconciled.
Traditional religious texts, like the Bible, were composed by ancient people with their perspective of an ancient worldview. The questions you are asking never occurred to the ancients. Accordingly, ancient composers of religious texts when they address questions about origins or being are thinking within the context of their worldview – not a modern scientific one.
Well, yes, Genesis is framed as a creation narrative, but the purpose is not to describe the order or structure of creation. The divine purpose seems to be found in the differences in the Genesis account when compared to the old Sumerian Enuma Elish narrative. Because it would seem likely that an ancient people would accept an older narrative of creation if they did not already have one for their culture, it could be assumed that the cultural of the general population of ancient Sumerian would have embraced the Sumerian Enuma Elish narrative.
The biblical Abraham was born about one hundred years after the demise of the Sumerian period and in the former territory of the Sumerian Empire. It might be assumed that the creation narrative of the Sumerians’, or one very much like it, was the popular creation myth that existed when and where Abraham was born. Furthermore, if I may be allowed to be even more speculative, it might be assumed that Abraham was the Hebrew who recapitulated the Enuma Elish narrative to change the narrative to include the differences found in the Genesis narrative. After all, Abraham entertained divine messengers more than any other Old Testament character. Only speculation and the recorded changes in Genesis as contrasted with known myths indicate what might be the unrecorded content of the possible conversations between Abraham and the angels who appeared, delivered messages, and ate at his table. (Genesis 12:1-3,7; 13:14-17; 15:1-21; 17:1-14; 18:1-33; 21:12-13; 22:1-18). Inspired scripture is not always through spiritual guidance but many times have been the result of divine conversations or encounters.
The truth and divine revelation are both able to co-opt ideas and symbols from myth, literature, and history to explain itself in language that the hearer understands. A well know example is co-opted from the Canaanite god Baal. Baal, having rose to the top of the pagan religion, was said to be the cloud rider or he comes riding on a cloud. Some Bible texts co-opt the idea of the cloud rider and apply it to YHWH and in the New Testament Jesus uses this symbol for Himself. The successful co-opting of symbols formerly applied to one thing where that other thing’s use of the symbol is completely lost, is a measure of the new things power and influence. Such is pagan Easter having been totally co-opted by Christianity.
Biblical examples of the co-opting of the cloud rider:
Matthew 24:30 ESV
Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the cloud s of heaven with power and great glory.
Matthew 26:64ESV
Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the cloud s of heaven.”
Mark 13:36 ESV
And then they will see the Son of Man coming in cloud s with great power and glory.
Mark 14:62 ESV
And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the cloud s of heaven.”
Luke 21:27 ESV
And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
Revelation 1:7 ESV
Behold, he is coming with the clouds , and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.
Revelation 10:1 ESV
The Angel and the Little Scroll
Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven, wrapped in a cloud , with a rainbow over his head, and his face was like the sun, and his legs like pillars of fire.
Revelation 14:14-16 ESV
The Harvest of the Earth
Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud , and seated on the cloud one like a son of man, with a golden crown on his head, and a sharp sickle in his hand.
And another angel came out of the temple, calling with a loud voice to him who sat on the cloud, “Put in your sickle, and reap, for the hour to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is fully ripe.”
So he who sat on the cloud swung his sickle across the earth, and the earth was reaped.
And in Acts 1:9 has Jesus taken up by a cloud as He ascends.
For the Old Testament see:
Psalm 104:3 ESV
He lays the beams of his chambers on the waters; he makes the clouds his chariot; he rides on the wings of the wind;
Isaiah 19:1 ESV
An oracle concerning Egypt. Behold, the Lord is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt; and the idols of Egypt will tremble at his presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.
Daniel 7:13 ESV
“I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.
Nahum 1:3 ESV
The Lord is slow to anger and great in power, and the Lord will by no means clear the guilty. His way is in whirlwind and storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet.
The Sumerian Enuma Elish: The Other Creation Narrative
Myths, religions, sciences, and philosophies are concerned with explanations and mechanics. Each form adapts and changes with the changing human speculation or understanding. Probably, the Genesis account of creation, might have been from the ancient Hebrew perspective, an inspired prophetic recapitulation of the creation myth from the Sumerian Enuma Elish.
When compared to the Genesis alternative there are these significant differences which have quite different projections as to a possible future.
Enuma Elish- Light results from combat between deities in chaos.
Genesis – Light begins with the command of the Creator. The light removes the darkness and orders chaos.
Enuma Elish- Cosmology formed from combat between deities.
Genesis - Cosmology resulted at the command of the Creator.
Enuma Elish- The worldly political powers are pawns of the celestial bodies (divinities).
Genesis – Authority for political power is imparted by celestial bodies identified as the elohim (divinities or sons of God/El).
Enuma Elish- Mankind’s purpose is to be slaves and servants of divinities.
Genesis – Mankind is made in the image of God.
Genesis Is All About Divine Inspiration
Conflicting interpretations of Genesis is about different views of the divine inspiration of the text. If Genesis is not divinely influenced, then, Genesis is just an ancient myth and has no theological, spiritual, scientific, social, political, or personal relevance. At the other extreme, if Genesis is the transcribed words received from God, then, an interpretation is necessary to determine the message. There is this verbal, plenary inspiration position which applies a literal interpretation from which the extreme belief in Genesis as an actual account of creation from which some creationists begin. An objective; that is, an unimpaired by presuppositions thinker ought to consider alternative perspectives.
Is the creation narrative of Genesis:
science or is it religion?
factual or is it theological?
descriptive or is it prescriptive?
literal or allegorical?
Rather than staring with a literal understanding of the creation narrative in Genesis, what if the Hebrews are recapitulating the Sumerian Enuma Elish creation myth. Could the Hebrews be claiming the Sumerians understood the creation completely wrong when it comes to the origin of mankind and the world they live in? Examine again the four differences between the Enuma Elish and Genesis narratives. Each of these four differences become theological assumptions expressed in some of the other sixty-five biblical books.
-
Creation is from nothing at the command of the creator – ex Nihilo
-
God is sovereign. There is no competition or struggle for power. God alone, orders the creation out of chaos.
-
The affairs of mankind are orchestrated by celestial deities operating under divine authority.
-
Man is made to be a reflection of God so there may be communion between mankind and God.
One may find similarities between the Enuma Elish and Genesis narratives, but the significances of the theological differences set Genesis apart from all other origin narratives.
Pagan myths, unlike Genesis, repeat the same kind of conflicts between the deities with each new myth explaining why there is a particular trouble in the world. On the other hand, Genesis 1-11 is the background of why there is the rest of the Bible which reveals how the trouble with mankind is redeemed from destruction.
Pagan myths are applied to the God of the Hebrews
Co-opting another culture’s myths and applying them to the Hebrew God occurs in the prophets and Psalms. YHWH as the cloud rider or coming on the clouds is borrowed from symbols about the Canaanite god Baal who was the cloud rider. Hebrew prophets declared the real cloud rider is YHWH.
The myth of scientific accuracies or knowledge
So that the ancients and the moderns may both hear, the Omniscient Creator speaks to us in divine baby talk rather than in a language defined by scientific truths. If He was to reveal Himself using a scientific truthful language, at what point during the growing knowledge of science should the deity choose? Should the choice of scientific truthful language be todays’ understanding which would be incomprehensible even five hundred years ago, or more recently four hundred years ago around 1611 when the King James Bible was published, or the scientific truthful language during the Dark Ages.
If the Omniscient Creator were to reveal Himself using an absolute truthful, scientific language, just so the creation account in Genesis would be scientifically verifiable, which era of scientific knowledge, soon to be outdated, should He have used? Whatever the choice, the language fails to meet the scientific demands during other ages.
If the creation accounts in Genesis were to record the language of absolute, scientific truths dictated by an Omniscient Creator how long in the future will it be before someone is knowledgeable enough to understand the scientific meaning of the words – if ever?
Each era lives with its own beliefs as representing accurate scientific knowledge. This is one of the myths of knowledge; that is, the current era has accurate scientific knowledge. In the current era, public science knowledge is largely unaware that knowledge has a time and date stamp as well as an expiration date – a date yet to be deciphered for most “truths.” Blind scientist cannot see the stamp and accordingly, lack humility.
What Is Genesis Chapters 1-11?
The divine purpose of Genesis is not science or even ancient cosmology. As already stated, Genesis 1-11 is background for understanding the rest of the message of the Bible correctly. The four things listed above abbreviates this background information. Maybe, some ancient Hebrew had these same four issues with the pagan cosmology of the Sumerian Enuma Elish or with some other similar mythology, and it wasn’t about the order of creation or the structure of the world. How this ancient Hebrew, maybe Abraham, corrected the differences is what we should acknowledge as divine inspiration because the rest of the ancient world got these differences wrong. Also, the writers of sixty-five subsequent books of the Bible found the same inspirational message.
The only three correct questions about the Genesis 1-11 narrative are:
Why did God create?
What went wrong?
How does God not aim to remedy the problem?
These first eleven chapters of Genesis also demonstrate what cannot fix the problem with mankind. The flood of Noah’s time and the destruction of Babel are fixes that don’t solve the problem. Accordingly, such divine actions are not the means God will use to fix the problem with mankind. What then? That is the question readers ought to be asking at Genesis 12:1. What will it take? Genesis 12 begins the narrative of how God remedies the problem.
Eventually, the reader gets to Exodus where another inadequate solution is revealed. However, this solution has symbols, rituals, rules, commandments, prophets, blood sacrifices and burnt offerings to say to the Hebrews, “This is what it takes! Can you, do it?”
They say, “Yes, we can.”
But after a thousand years, this is not the fix because they cannot keep the Mosaic Law or heed the warnings of the prophets.
Now, at last the fix . . .
“but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.” (Hebrews 1:2)
“He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you” (1Peter 1:20).
In these verses and in John 3:16 we find the fix and can answer why God created. To the astonishment of the deceased saints, they will be seeing those who are their fellow saints who didn’t have the chance of a snowball in hell in making it to heaven.
The Bible and modern science or even ancient science texts are catalogued so to be arranged on separate shelves of the library – especially the divine library. If you have a scientific question, go to the science shelf rather than the theological shelf.
1 Like
But, we can’t explain what happens when they put our baby daughter who is 3 minutes old into our arms and we can’t leave the wonder and the awe of that spectacular event alone without cherishing it and wondering what it all means.
I have wondered why there is opposition to the poorly termed ‘fine tuning’ and one opinion I have seen is from atheists who oppose a beginning and an teleology suggested by the discussions around the so called fine tuning. Digging further, I notice that (some) evolutionists (perhaps mainly atheists but I am unsure) who subscribe to the view that if the events unfolded again, the results would differ from those we observe (species and all bio-events).
On a beginning - I ask how can we state a time for the universe (many billion years) if we deny a biggining? That is how an age is understood; it begins and then unfolded for a given time.
On a random series defining the unfolding of the world and biomatter (and life), just how can any scientist claim it may turn out differently since this scientist has only this world to study?
I would be interested to hear of the reasoning behind these alternate views and not a debate on ID or Darwinism. This discussion seeks scientific evidence and not ideology.
There is no beginning of beginnings. No end of them, no end to them. Nature has no beginning. It is eternal. It eternally blows space-time bubbles. On the trillions of worlds with intentional life in our mediocre universe there will be all manner of ‘design’ failures as there are here, speciation couldn’t not be different. What does any of this have to do with the myth of ‘fine tuning’? And God?
I don’t know enough about how to calculate the age of the universe. I know that it centers on us isn’t the stars and looking at the expansion of the universe. Im not 100% certain of how time or space time places into this and I’m not sure the potential string theory ( multiverse ) plays into and if by expansion they mean our universes inflation and so on. It goes beyond anything I’ve studied.
As for would all processes work back out the same. I don’t know. I lean more towards no because I have no reason to believe that free will and chance would happen again. I guess the science of the gaps is essentially the same as god of the gaps in this situation. I guess if we have determined that the same particle can be in two places at once. Quantum superposition seems to indicate chance of choice in my mind. That is why I believe Einstein ended up with that whole “ god does not play dice with the universe. I just feel like if that is all possible than perhaps so is making a different choice. Again, this all goes beyond what I know.
What I would have to see is the other argument. If they can’t provide science for everything would happen the same or that something can be different then it’s sort of like Schrödinger’s cat and that means it can’t be used as evidence for fine tuning. That means we are left with what we can better interpret.