I agree, I just don’t think you’ve made a scientific case for that.
There is quite a bit of literature where rabbis, ancient and following, have argued over what this really means. One extreme says God determines how a lot lands even if only the wind “throws” it, the other held that the verse only means lots cast in judicial contexts.
I see the difference between random and chosen, but I would agree with the view of my older brother the mathematician here: you’re looking at it with insufficient dimensions.
You have explained your view. That doe not make it correct.
Your analogy explains your view, it does not make it correct.
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
143
I was hoping you could address what I wrote with more than “it’s not necessarily correct”.
What goes through your mind when someone thanks God for the food on their plate? Do you feel they are mistaken because the natural process of human agriculture fully explains the existence of the food?
God is the creator so everything was made by Him. It has nothing to do with how it was made.
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
145
Then why do you object when Evolutionary Creationists say the same thing? Why can’t God be the creator and while also having life evolve as described by the theory of evolution?
Like i have said before. You never refer to any previous conversation, or remember it, or take notice of it.
Your conclusion is false, because it is based on one stetement taken out of context.
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
149
How is it false? How is it taken out of context?
You have no problem with God creating the food on peoples’ plate even though we have a natural explanation for how the food got there. So why doesn’t this apply equally to evolution?
I said God is the creator, no matter how it was done. I did not say that God was the creator using ToE.
Basic English comprehension.
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
151
Evolutionary Creationists are saying that God used the ToE, and you are saying that this means God can’t be the creator. How is that not direct a direct contradiction?
do I understand it correctly that you attack ToE because you think it does not allow space to the creation of God - that it is atheistic in that sense?
My crit is that it does not seem to reflect the character of God as suggested by Paul in Romans 1. ToE is innately selfish and does not seem to “love” the weak or unfortunate. Now, it could be claimed that is true of the modern world, but I do not see that. i see balance and fairness in the way predator and prey interact. There is no bias either way. Injury or illness effects all, so does not count as cruel or bias in that sense. (Ecology)
I just think there is an element or two missing from the understanding of Evolution where God is.
That seems to be quite a romanticized version of what happens in the nature, in the past and today.
I have not observed balance and fairness in the way predators and prey interact, except in that predators either emigrate or starve to death if they kill all the prey individuals from their home range. Predators try to immobilize the prey individuals so that they can be consumed, dead or alive. A dead prey decays rapidly, which may be the reason why many animals prefer that the prey is kept alive while it is eaten by the offspring of the predator.
If prey manages to ‘escape’ from predator limitation (prey multiply faster than the predators can kill), they multiply until they eat all food, starve and die either to hunger or diseases. Maybe that could be seen as a mechanism of balance but it could be seen as a bit cruel mechanism.
Wild animals have infections and illnesses, sometimes they die to it, sometimes recover. We seldom see the corpses because many sick vertebrates retreat to hiding places before death and scavengers eat the rest rapidly. Some percent of animals die in accidents. Much like in humans without modern healthcare.
We can observe much cruelty and selfishness in the way how humans act. The same is true for wild animals, except that there are no written laws that would limit the behaviours of individuals and no law enforcement. The rule of nature seems to be: if it keeps you alive and lets you multiply, it is ok.
I do not understand why God has made our world to be what it is but that is the reality where we live. If this is the reality we observe, we better take that into account when we try to interpret what and how God has created and is creating.
There needs to be pragmatism as well as romanticism. Death is essential for life. Injury and illness are just byproducts. Death and suffering free is as much romanticism as what you see from me, probably more so.
Self preservation is essential. Jesus said love other as yourself , not more than yourself.
Whether we like it or not, God has got the balance right. Eden is an impossible pipe dream within the parameters of this world.
Now you’re giving the Egyptian gods a name again… I’m trying to work with you here.
That’s the key difference in how we look at it. If God inspired Genesis though, He can have it written to make sense from a modern worldview as well, without compromising the Hebrew meanings or the scientific method.
The light from Gen 1:3 is an instantiation of all the lights created in the heavens (plural form) in 1:1. God did not create an empty space or nothing when He created the heavens (how could you call ‘nothing’ in the plural?), but they include all the stars, all the celestial bodies. The Earth is named as one of these, with the word ‘and’ (853. אֵת eth - even or namely). As a celestial body, the earth initially had light (a molten magma ocean) and then it was or became (1961. הָיָה hayah) without form (8414. תֹּהוּ tohu - desert) and void (922. בֹּהוּ bohu - empty) – i.e. it cooled, solidified, and was like a blank dry canvas – and darkness (2822. חשֶׁךְ choshek - obscurity) covering the face (6440. פָנִים panim or paneh - the face (as the part that turns)) – i.e. tectonic plates – of the deep (8415. תְּהוֹם tehom - primeval ocean) – i.e. molten magma ocean.
On Day 1, this light that was obscured below the the pronto tectonic plates or surface or the earth, God lit up again in the impact with Theia (hypothesized ancient planet) that then formed the Moon. ‘Let light be’ does not mean that He didn’t create light until then.
On Day 4, the lights from the heavens (before Day 1) are now shining through the atmosphere (no longer thickly clouded) which then separates that light into a spectrum of lights towards the morning and evening. All the colors of light are ‘lights’ with separate wavelengths, individual photons of light having their own frequencies, energies.
Yes, it does – the apostle affirms that when he says that light did not exist until God commanded it to be.
You can’t use your modern allegory to change the original meaning. The point of that verse is to contradict the ANE view that light existed on its own by saying no, Yahweh made it.
So you double down with bad Hebrew and bad science.
I’m sure you entertain yourself well with this allegory you’re spinning, but in doing so you repeatedly trample on the text. I see no difference between you and a YECist, both trying to force an ancient text to talk science and in the process mangling the theology. That you feel free to change the meanings of words is enough to condemn the approach.
On top of that I see no point in your effort. ANyone with common sense is going to find your ‘interpretation’ at least as laughable as the YEC silliness, so all your efforts can do is make the Gospel look ridiculous. At best you might possibly be edifying yourself, but I can’t imagine all the convoluted efforts doing better than just confusing anyone else.
