The Tension of God's Involvement/Intervention within Theistic Evolution

[Vinnie]

@gbrooks9

Metaphysics is not testable like Physics can be.

Is this statement testable? Or is it a philosophical claim about the limits of empirical testability? It’s humorous that all the people usually critiquing metaphysics are actually engaging in metaphysical arguments to do so.

Vinnie

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks - - T.E. (aka: Evolutionary Theist))]

@Vinnie

is it a philosophical claim about the limits of empirical testability? It’s humorous that all the people usually critiquing metaphysics are actually engaging in metaphysical arguments to do so.

@Vinnie

It isn’t HUMOROUS … it is more IRONIC.

For example: Those familiar with discussions regarding the Paranormal wouold be aware of the typical description of ghosts being “immaterial” - - and thus it is concluded that ghosts cannot interact with the “material” realm. This is a metaphysical claim, and it is a claim that is impossible to confirm. Paranormal “specialists” who use electronic equipment to record paranormal lights, sounds, or movement of material objects apparently don’t believe that assertion.

There is no “supernatural rulebook” which says what is or isn’t possible.

[Vinnie]

I don’t know why you are bringing ghosts into a question of God’s existence and nature.The latter is sui generis. That you don’t recognize this is a problem with your conception of God going in. If ghosts exist, they too depend on God like everything else. But establishing “ghosts” (whatever those are) exist and that paranormal specialists (whatever those are) are not engaged in pseudoscience (good luck) is another matter. Comparing God to ghosts is what I would expect from a recent atheist thumper who is no longer posting here.

Vinnie

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

As metaphysics is all about abstract that makes it inaccessible to the scientific methodology

In many ways it is not humorous at all but sad that some people cannot see beyond the tangible and measurable

Richard

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks - - T.E. (aka: Evolutionary Theist))]

@Vinnie

Comparing God to ghosts is what I would expect from a recent atheist thumper who is no longer posting here.

@Vinnie

My point about “ghosts” and all things supernatural is that there is no rulebook
on metaphysics. I even stated this point in my last post. I find your tone overly
combative, argumentative and almost silly.

You tried to deflect my comments by dismissing it as more metaphysics.
You proved my point by making the very observation.

Whether it is Ghosts, God or Karma - - it is all metaphysics.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

As metaphysics is all about abstract that makes it inaccessible to the scientific methodology

The incompatibility I see is that metaphysics is dogmatic while the scientific methodology requires testability and falsifiability.

@RichardG

In many ways it is not humorous at all but sad that some people cannot see beyond the tangible and measurable

I think it is misguided that people claim others can’t see beyond the tangible and measurable just because they don’t believe in the same things they do. I see beauty and compassion. I experience elation, fear, love, and a whole host of other intangible and immeasurable things.

[adamjedgar (adam james edgar)]

@Theangeloffury

As scientific developments further our understanding of the origins of humanity and the universe as a whole, those of us who hold to TE are exposed to a tension that exists from the course of evolutionary history. As science develops, there are fewer and fewer “God of the gaps” areas that seem ripe for God’s direct involvement within that history. Abiogensis is a good but disputed one and of course the origins of the actual universe. For TE proponents, I see two camps of thought for how to understand God’s involvement (please share more if you have any!)

1. God set up all the right conditions in order for life to develop so after intial creation state (Big Bang), there was no further needed intervention until humanity came on the scene.
2. God set up the conditions for the Big Bang, but at various points, God “intervened” with creation to produce the effects he intended, the advent of humanity as one possible desired effect.

There is a tension that exists here however: in option 1, you basically give all ground away for God to seemingly be involved in creation, and he becomes more like a Deist watchmaker. You cede all ground for the non-theist proposal of, “Well if everything can be explained through naturalistic means, does that mean we’re just waiting for a natural explanation of the universe?” (Does God become necessary argument)

In option 2, you cede ground by saying that God’s initial conditions weren’t adequate enough for the purposes of working on its own blueprint. The non theist would say, “ If God designed the universe as He wanted, why would He need to intervene at certain points at all?” It seems to undermine any intelligent design arguments (from a TE perspective of intelligent design). Now I think there are some interesting options to approach this but I’m interested in people’s take here.

Which situation is more favorable in your opinion? A God who has to intervene in His creation, seemingly undermining his creative ability for the start, or A God who seems removed from creation but clearly showed the capacity to bring forth “desired results” (you can debate if there are any intended desired reIsults) within His creation. For non-theists, which option for you would make more sense to you if you believed God existed?

P.S. My statements of hypothetical non-theists isn’t to share any negative sentiment to them or win a argument with them. The arguments they give are completely fair and should be noticed.

P.S.S. I’m aware of arguments as God being the sustainer of the universe and the argument of that Prime Mover that could solve option 1. But feel free to discuss it more!

I think that there is a far more serious concern…

how can the Second Coming be considered a real event when it goes against the very fabric of science that Theistic Evolutionists hold so dear?

• Dead bodies that have long experienced biological death and decay being raised to fully conscious life (scientifically impossible)

• A human rising up into the atmosphere against the laws of gravity…to meet Christ in the air (scientifically impossible)

• Humans travelling into the vacumm of outer space (scientifically impossible)

• Spirits talking…an entitiy without a voicebox with which to manipulate air molecules to make sound is scientifically impossible!

If the Flood wasnt real because God couldnt do that, if Creation wasnt real 6,000 years ago because God couldnt create a fully mature planet (despite the text saying Adam was a man and not an embryo or infant), then how can he come again in the clouds of heaven at the Second Coming?

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks - - T.E. (aka: Evolutionary Theist))]

@adamjedgar

If the Flood wasnt real because God couldnt do that, if Creation wasnt real 6,000 years ago because God couldnt create a fully mature planet (despite the text saying Adam was a man and not an embryo or infant), then how can he come again in the clouds of heaven at the Second Coming?

@adamjedgar (cc: @moderators )

I ask you to pull back from the abyss. Rhetoric aimed against one of the most ancient human impulse (the great hope of eternal life!) is not helpful here at BioLogos. There are plenty of non-theist sites where you can banter on such themes to your heart’s content.

Your post is like a slap in the face to the very founders of BioLogos and its mission.

I hope you understand me in the best possible spirit.

[St.Roymond]

@Vinnie

God cannot interfere or intervene in nature.

That’s a poor way of putting it. It would be more accurate to say that the statement “God intervenes in nature” is meaningless.

@Vinnie

We don’t need gaps for God to fill to prove his existence. Every single material object in the universe already does that at all times.

Or to borrow a phrase from Luther, God is “in, with, and under” every event from quarks on up, something summed up in Paul’s quote from a Greek poet, “In him we live and move and have our being”.

[Bill_II]

@adamjedgar

how can the Second Coming be considered a real event when it goes against the very fabric of science that Theistic Evolutionists hold so dear?

It is a supernatural event for which science can say nothing.

@adamjedgar

If the Flood wasnt real because God couldnt do that

Nobody says God couldn’t do it. There is no evidence that He did.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks - - T.E. (aka: Evolutionary Theist))]

@St.Roymond

Paul’s quote from a Greek poet, “In him we live and move and have our being”.

@St.Roymond

What a marvelous quote!!! And I’m not usually a fan of Paul.

[St.Roymond]

@Vinnie

When God performs a supernatural miracle, he acts from within nature, elevating it to a higher power.

Like energy levels for electrons? put in the right energy and different things happen?

@Vinnie

it is the ordinary, natural course of things, and not miracles, which is the most direct evidence of God’s existence and action as First Cause.

Miracles don’t show that God is (exists), they show what He is like.

@Vinnie

Davies adds: “You cannot intervene in what you are doing yourself.

Exactly – it’s a meaningless statement.

[St.Roymond]

@adamjedgar

how can the Second Coming be considered a real event when it goes against the very fabric of science

It doesn’t. Nothing in science says that power from outside this universe can’t enter into this universe.

@adamjedgar

A human rising up into the atmosphere against the laws of gravity…to meet Christ in the air (scientifically impossible)

Nope. Humans do that all the time.

@adamjedgar

Humans travelling into the vacumm of outer space (scientifically impossible)

Sorry, but humans do that, too.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@Theangeloffury

1. God set up all the right conditions in order for life to develop so after intial creation state (Big Bang), there was no further needed intervention until humanity came on the scene.
2. God set up the conditions for the Big Bang, but at various points, God “intervened” with creation to produce the effects he intended, the advent of humanity as one possible desired effect.

I think there is a third option. God created for relationship and thus the rules (natural law) thus allows for God’s participation in events. However, relationship is not control, and participation is not intervention. IOW natural law is never set aside but natural law is not a causally closed system.

Accordingly your objectiions to options 1 and 2 do not apply to this third option. God is involved and that involvement is part of the original design.

@Theangeloffury

I’m aware of arguments as God being the sustainer of the universe

This is an argument to which I am opposed and I see no functional distinction from pantheism. It raises the question of whether God is unwilling or incapable of real creation – creating something that can stand on its own. And neither of these look viable to me – neither of these are a God which I can admire, neither are an authentic relationship.

[St.Roymond]

@mitchellmckain

It raises the question of whether God is unwilling or incapable of real creation – creating something that can stand on its own.

A deeper question: is “something that can stand on its own” even a meaningful phrase?

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

Hey, George, long time no see! I see I have been tagged on a lot of moderator things. Full disclosure, I had major spinal surgery Tueday, I just got home from the hospital and am high on a number of drugs, and you all are just going to have to fight amongst yourselves without playground monitors for a while. Other moderators have finals weeks and first semester grades due, and the general implosion of democracy to deal with, so for the love of all things good and holy, can you all just please play nice unsupervised for a few weeks? Thanks in advance!