You are whistling in the wind.
Paul is cleverly quoting a Greek poet: A Pagan Poet in Our Eucharistic Prayers
1 Like
How did Noah know he lived on a globe? The OT describes the world as a flat disc. Noah would only know the world as he knew it was flooded, unless you want to go with a supernatural geography lesson.
5 Likes
LOL LOL
So⌠it is not meaningful to say that God cannot stand on His own? âŚwithout anything holding Him up? This semantic dodge will not work for me. It basically attempts to limit God to being unable to make anything very much like Himself. All which is required is to distinguish this from contingency which is very easy since creating something which is not contingent on anything is not even logically coherent. But this is quite meaningfully distinct from creating something which does not require something to actively keep it existing.
Interestingly, this raises in my mind Aristotleâs four causes: material, formal, efficient, and final. I would say all of these apply to anything contingent. But none of these are the same as active dependence. Obviously creation implies God is the efficient and final cause of the universe. And I even have no problem with the idea of a passive dependence such as saying the material cause of the universe is some kind of emanation of God. No, my problem has to do with the formal cause only, claiming that God cannot create anything which cannot maintain its own existence by the nature God has given it. That looks to me like an unreasonable limitation upon God and to say this is what God has done looks indistinguishable from pan(en)theism to me.
This is also distinct from Godâs participation in events to keep creation fulfilling the purpose for He created it (which is what I think Hebrews 3 is referring to). I think this issue is equivalent to the question of whether natural law is a creation of God or just a pattern of Godâs governance of the universe. It is the latter to which I am opposed as basically a restatement of the above objection. Natural law is the form of the universe and is an authentic creation â that by which the universe exists as a distinct and separate existence from God Himself and thus exists in a relationship with God, where events are a product of BOTH its own nature (natural law) and God choosing to interact with His creation as a participant in events. That dichotomy is what makes it a relationship rather than pantheism.
Perhaps this is a little simplistic. It is all very well when dealing with inanimate objects or systems without independent thought, but as soon as you include independent thought you introduce variables that no one, even God can predict.
This is where the automation of evolution fails. If, God had a specific plan of humanity, then the independent actions of fauna as a whole could not be guaranteed.
Now, if, as you do, think that the precise shape and form of humanity is not relevant then the effect will be diminished, maybe to nothing, but if, as many Christians think, the form of humanity has significance (and scripture would encourage this thought) then there is more likelihood of God having to âtweakâ, or even âtinkerâ to get the result He wanted.
As this becomes a purely philosophical or theological standpoint science cannot possible know or decree either way.
Richard
The earliest broadly recognized synchronization between the Biblical narrative and extra-Biblical history is the involvement of the Assyrian king Sennacherib, the pharaoh Taharqa, and Hezekiah around 690 BC. Noahâs flood, by AiGâs chronology, would have been 1,700 years prior, although that timeline conflicts with eyewitness Egyptian history.
Attempting to validate early Biblical history based on events centuries later, is like asserting British legends of King Arthur must be true because nobody disputes that Churchill was a historical figure.
2 Likes
It is not automation because it is not mechanical/deterministic. It is the self-organization. What is the difference? The cause is not external. It is a choice of the thing itself.
I think it is more complicated than this. I think history is something we (living organisms) and God write together â relationship not design. Certainly I think intelligence, language, and a capacity for understanding abstractions like love and goodness, is what God was concerned with, and that most specifics of appearance are more a matter of human vanity. But this does not mean that no specifics of human form are relevant â some uniquely human characteristics are very much relevant. Our largely âhairlessâ appearance and bipedal locomotion is directly connected with evolutionary developments which gave us considerable dominance over other living organisms (persistence hunting). The shape of the human hand is crucial in this regard also giving us the ability to create tools and reshape our environment. Even the shape of our skulls has a great deal to do with our mastery of spoken language which freed up our hands from their role in communication.
But human vanity is real and has considerable connection with things like racism which I think is not from God in any way at all.
3 Likes
There are guidelines on these boards that participants cannot promote a non-Theistic view of religion. Where is âthereâ when you write âexactly the aim thereâŚâ?
Iâm confused. Adam is a Christian. He simply thinks Christianity is inconsistent with evolution. Breathe. Itâs unfortunate, but itâs not the end of the world.
He is trying to argue that science says things like Jesus canât rise from the dead so we should not cave to science. He is not saying Jesus didnât rise from the dead because science says so.
Vinnie
4 Likes
Thank you for the clarifications.
As Iâve thought many times before, there are limits to how well a person in his/her late sixties can keep track of who said what about their personal stance a dozen posts ago.
Encouraging members to use their PREFERENCE settings to customize their self-described category would be a great blessing to understanding a memberâs stance before the very first sentence is finished.
1 Like
Some think that our form reflects being âan image of Godâ. That is not credible because God is Spirit, except that after the Incarnation Jesus has a material human-shaped body. Even in the case of Jesus, it is possible that the logic is the reverse: Jesus looked like the contemporary humans because he became one of us. The rare cases in the OT where God seems to take the form of a human, like when He met Abram, can be understood through the same logic. God took the shape of humans, rather than the opposite.
As our shape cannot be an image of the shape of God, the âimage of Godâ needs to point to something else than shape or form. That tells that we could be images of God even if our shape would be radically different.
3 Likes
Without over complicating things. This is spin.
Whether yo like it or not, the automatic understanding of the Phrase âMade in the image of Godâ will be the physical form. I am not talking about theology or trying to justify it to fit science or philosophy, I am talking about the 1st and most obvious view that any person reading it would take.
That is, we are made in the shape and form that God wanted us to be, rather than a reptile, Insectoid or other functioning blob.
Genesis 1 implies design. God makes order out of chaos. He moulds it, shapes it and defines it. There is no chance, or self determination. That is the heart of Genesis 1.
Now, if you are going to claim scientific evolutionary theory, it contradicts that notion. Everything is generated accidentally, by fluke that fits. There is no planned result. There is no goal. If it works, it stays, until or unless something better appears.
Theistic evolution cannot be the scientific view adopted and conform to the spirit of Scripture. It is as simple as that.
Richard
1 Like
Yet I would say this mechanistic image of God is how much of the modern world seems to think of the situation. many people think they know what it means and glean much meaning from it. I agree with your view that âGod intervenes in natureâ is meaningless. As the Bible repeatedly asserts, God and Jesus sustain all creation.
I make no pretense in understanding how supernatural miracles occur. Simply that itâs not a case of God stepping in to fix a car like a mechanic.
They call people to God, validate his promises, demonstrate his sovereignty and for some, show them God exists, whether this is logically viable or not. The signs in the Gospel of John are written to a Christian community who already clearly believed God existed. Whichever ones go back to Jesus, they were most likely seen by Jews who also already believed God existed. They were to establish the identity of Jesus as God and validate His message. But miracles come in all shapes and forms for a number of purposes. Sometimes, as scripture says, they wonât even convince a staunch skeptics: Luke 16: 31 âHe said to him, âIf they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.ââ Sometimes the skeptics would attribute them to Beelzebub. But for staunch skeptics today, the idea of supernatural miracles would lead to some sort of belief in God or the supernatural for most people. We live in a very skeptical times. Things are different.
Correct. Scientism/materialism/philosophical naturalism/verificationism and any other isms that fit are all in this boat. They think mathematical abstractions and scientific models, as wonderful and useful as they are, give a complete description of reality or are the only trustworthy ones. Despite the fact that this posture is not empirically testable. And any evidence you provide to the contrary is immediately dismissed by their dogma. Entire fields of academic research are dismissed as flowery words here because of a lack of empirical verification and several people have questioned the LNC dialoging with the self-defeating nature of needing to affirm the law of non-contradiction to deny it. Many people use abstract thought while denying any basis for it, metaphysics underpins all their discussions and the scientific method itself, yet they think the foundation can be rejected out of hand.
Is that metaphysical rule number one? There are plenty of metaphysical arguments which say what is or isnât possible or actual. You can either show the premises are flawed or that the argument itself is not valid, meaning the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Or you can take the most common path at this forum and dismiss philosophy at hand and go back to the altar of scientific worship as the only means of real knowledge about the world.
[1] I appreciate your respect for scripture and desire to get it right but you really need to do better. No one says God couldnât do that. Just that the evidence strongly suggests God did not do that. Combined with geological evidence, two creation stories intertwined into one, all the parallels to other similar flood stories, and a bunch of logistic problems that can only be solved after invoking countless additional supernatural miracles not in the text (for example what did the lions eat after the flood? How did the penguins get home?). Many of us do not deny that God could provide food from heaven for two lions or transport penguins back home.
[2] Creation didnât happen 6,000 years ago. Creation happens at every instant for all things at all times from Godâs timeless perspective. That is what creation ex nihilo means. God actively sustains all things at all times as numerous scripture references teach.
Two things. First, some scientists, getting high off their own supply and do deny any possibility of supernatural miracles. That is just their metaphysics at work and nothing more. These seem scientists would probably burst off metaphysics as well so they do not make a v very compelling case at all. Itâs mostly laughable to be honest. Second, miracles do go beyond what is normally possible. Isnât that the point? If everyone rose from the dead or could turn water into wine (Iâm going with bourbon!) what would make Jesus special?
The nature of my being is not one that is capable of walking on air. Scientifically, we can explain why this occurs but while science wants to atomize everything, philosophy tends to deal in wholes. There is no reason to pit these views against one another. That only happens when people donât stay inter lane.
You are free to disagree with it but ânot liking Greek philosophyâ isnât an argument. So you think there can be more than one supreme being or prime mover or ground of being itself? How would you distinguish between beings with no potentialities to actulaize?
Feser: Could there be more than one such cause? There could not, not even in principle. For there can be two or more of a kind only If there is something to differentiate them, something that one instance has that the others lack. And there can be no such differentiating feature where something purely actual is concerned. Thus, we typically distinguish the things of our experience by their material or temporal featuresâ by one thing being larger or smaller than another, say, or taller or shorter than another, or existing at a time before or after another. But since what is purely actual is immaterial and eternal, one purely actual thing could not be differentiated from another in terms of such features. More generally, two or more things of a kind are to be differentiated in terms of some perfection or privation that one has and the other lacks. We might say, for instance, that this treeâs roots are more sturdy than that oneâs, or that this squirrel is lacking its tail while the other has its tail. But as we have seen, what is purely actual is completely devoid of any privation and is maximal in perfection. Hence, there can be no way in principle to differentiate one purely actual cause from another in terms o f their respective perfections or privations. But then such a cause possesses the attribute of unityâ that is to say, there cannot be, even in principle, more than one purely actual cause. Hence, it is the same one unactualized actualizer to which all things owe their existence.
You can certainly deny Aristotleâs and Aquinas cosmological argument for a prime mover, and modern formulations of them, but if we do accept God as pure act or being itself, then its not possible for God to not be one. I find the cosmological arguments are quite successful. It just seems a lot of modern skeptics and Christians have only ever encountered caricatures of them.
Their ideas are transferrable to what we know today from other areas like science. With a few adaptations, their metaphysics is still quite spectacular. But there is a tendency of people to just dismiss it without actually dialoging with it.
Maybe. But in the end there are solid metaphysical arguments in favor of this view or there are not. You can appeal to scripture and I would not object, but a lot of people might say
âThe Jews and Christians behind the Bible were children of their time and their ideas were great within that mental framework but not something that would be great today.â
You seemed have embraced some sort of relativism. I do not share that perspective.
Iâd say the constraint comes from the natures He gave us.
Not entirely accurate. Many would appeal to the flood account itself, or Jesusâ reference to Noah I donât thin it requires a literal flood) but also 2 Peter 3:
3Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, âWhere is this âcomingâ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.â 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by Godâs word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
Also 1 Peter 3:
17 For it is better, if it is Godâs will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. 18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive,[d] he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spiritsâ 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you alsoânot the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[e] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at Godâs right handâwith angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
Do we believe everything in this account actually happened but the flood?
Did Christ suffer to bring us to God? Check!
His body was put to death but made alive in spirit? Check.
After resurrection he proclaimed to imprisoned spirits? Check.
Jesus has gone into heaven to sit Godâs right hand? Check?
Noah built an ark and 8 people were saved? Nope.
There is Biblical evidence for the flood and that is more than enough for some people. When a lot of us modern Christians discuss Adam and Eve and the Flood, the tendency is to go after the low hanging mythological fruit of Genesis 1-11. In reality, for Bible believing Christians who accept inspiration, often what we find in the NT is more important for addressing these questions to us.
I think that is likely. Many times we are tying to say the same thing but in different words. I am only really interested in the substance of what people argue or discuss.
Iâd say this occurs because many of us modern people have a mechanistic image of God and do not understand the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. But you are correct. Whenever I talk with someone and they use the word miracle, I assume they mean some super natural event that goes beyond the normal course of things. But I like to be careful in discussion what the term means in prologued discussion.
A statistical outlier would be me seeing 3 black cats cross the road on the way to work. I really feel a man rising from the dead, while statistically uncommon, is a very different sort of event. I donât find it very useful. The net spacing is too large as well. It doesnât allow itself room to catch more mundane miracles.
I have no issue with that. For me, everything that exists is a work of God. All of creation at every instant is 100% a miracle in the sense that God creates and sustains it from nothing. But to think any event goes beyond this is another matter. I doubt doubt people who tell me they felt Godâs presence in their life or something happened they deem a miracle. I am a very skeptical person but but God is going to of what God wants.
I agree.
I think the issue is that you may be describing God as creating countless prime movers of which there can only be one. Cosmological arguments attempt to show how all actualized potentials must stem from something purely actual, lacking potentiality. If something lacks potentiality there can be no distinguishing features separating it from another of its kind. When we imagine creation, I suspect we only do so by imaging someone using pre-existing parts. That is what we do and what we know. The idea of creation ex nihilo, if you subscribe to that sort of thing, takes on a different meaning.
Vinnie
3 Likes
I want to point out that every random process in nature is upheld by God at every instant. It is not out of His control Its how he chose to create and order nature. So If life has a degree of freedom and the complexity to evolve, this is by Godâs choice and design. I am not convinced these need to be mutually exclusive.
Also, science isnât the only means of knowledge about the world and it does not give us a complete picture of reality. Only the delusional think that. There is more at work here.Evolution does not provide an exhaustive definition of what makes a human and it never will. Evolution can never exclude the notion that is was subtly God-guided throughout either. Our data is way too poor to ever do that.
Since I believe in the rational soul, endowed by God when he deemed life ready, to be created in his image means having a physical nature and brain suitably well developed for the supernatural creation of souls to elevate an animal into a rational being capable of abstract though. I donât see an issue here.
It seems to me like God is in charge at all times but He doesnât seem to be a control freak.
But if we defined a human as 100% physical/biological and viewed evolution as a purely random process that describes the totality of a human, I would say you are largely correct. It is incompatible with Christianity.
Vinnie
3 Likes
There are certainly people for which that is good enough. The problem is there is no physical evidence for a flood that matches the flood story even in a vague fashion. The best you can do is argue for a local flood that requires you to throw out most (and the important point) of the Biblical story.
1 Like
For some people, Biblical evidence is the better evidence here. I try to see science and faith working together but whether you reject science here or the Biblical portait, something has got to go. For some Christians its " the book written by God" that ties into their salvation and experiences with God vs âthe Science of sinful manâ that is calling their worldview, and therefore those experiences into question.
I agree a localized flood tosses out some important parts such as a reversal of creation that was undone and humanity was started. It is not an easy position to be in for Christians who take the Bible seriously. The local flood is a compromise between these two positions, and to be honest, I donât think anyone could refute the idea of a large civilization being wiped out by a flood save one family God spoke to.
What I find rather interesting is the genealogical Adam and Eve being discussed in another thread --assuming we push them back a bit in time-- then the flood can do what the Bible narrates in regards to humanity. God could have wiped out all humanity (full metaphysical humans specially endowed with a soul) at that time.
If I am going to tinker with a genealogical A&E in the distant past, I might as well throw on an ancient flood based on the NT witnesses. I can still maintain Genesis 1-11 is mostly mythological narrative.
And I am geneuinely curious to your response and everyone elseâs who thinks the flood was complete myth, something I seriously entertain as well about 1 Peter 3.
- Did Christ suffer to bring us to God? Check!
- His body was put to death but made alive in spirit? Check.
- After resurrection he proclaimed to imprisoned spirits? Check.
- Jesus has gone into heaven to sit Godâs right hand? Check?
- Noah built an ark and 8 people were saved? Nope.
Which of these do you agree/disagree with?
Vinnie
Not a scientific reality.
Not a scientific reality.
Also not a scientific reality.
Youâve turned science into an idol, ascribing to it power it does not have.
And youâve done the same thing with history.
But Noah made no such claim.
I see two options here: one that lets the Bible be what it is and asks what it means, and one that sets up idols to support a view that refuses to look at the Bible as what it is. Itâs an easy choice: I reject the idolatry of YEC.
1 Like
As a generally skeptical Unitarian Universalist, I am still impressed by
this class in master word-smithing! But your still cherry-picking here.
Letâs add 3 Peter 5 to the list [<EDIT: Typo 2 corrected to 3!]:
âBut they deliberately forget that long ago by Godâs word
the heavens came into being and the earth was formed
out of [the] water and by [adjacent to?] water.â
And letâs add a few more gems from the Old Testament!
REVISED CHECKOFF LIST:
[New Testament]
Did Christ suffer to bring us to God? Check!
His body was put to death but made alive in spirit? Check.
After resurrection he proclaimed to imprisoned spirits? Check.
Jesus has gone into heaven to sit Godâs right hand? Check?
**[Old Testament Accepted in New Testament]
Noah built an ark and 8 people were saved? Nope.
Earth was created from out of the waters below the heavens? Nope.
[Old Testament Claims]
That the Flood occurred sometime between Egyptâs 3rd and 6th Dynasty? Nope.
That the bones of oxen, elephants and other large mammals should be
âŚ. found amonst the bones of large dinosaurs and large reptiles? Nope
There is a solid firmament between the waters above and the waters below? Nope.
The Birds of the air were created out of the waters above the firmament? Nope.
The Earth and its living things were created in Six Days? Nope**
All of the last five (5) claims can be demonstrated as false.
The first four (4) New Testament claims cannot be demonstrated as false.
G.Brooks
The biblical writers perceived God as working through ânaturalâ processes no less than through supernatural events. Science does not remove God from the picture, but rather provides a physical description of His normal patterns of running the physical universe. Nor does this restrict Godâs ability to act in a miraculous way whenever He sees fit. Properly asked, the question is âHow did God achieve this?â Of course, there are plenty of atheistic claims that scientific explanations remove God from the picture, and far too many YEC, ID, or deistic endorsements of such errors. Remember Ruth Grahamâs rejoinder to the silly Soviet claim that cosmonauts did not see God - they would have if they had exited the capsule. Likewise, we need a more comprehensive, behind the scenes view to perceive Godâs hand in natural processes.
Both everyday experience and historical records, including the biblical accounts, indicate that most events do follow natural law-type patterns. Even when miracles happen, their use tends to be minimized. After feeding the four and five thousand, the leftovers were carefully saved. Walking on water required a tedious slog across the waves. Demands for a sign just to be impressive, or for personal convenience, were rejected.
We also have the responsibility to be faithful witnesses. Rather than trying to be PR agents, we must honestly report what we know. Rather than seeking evidence of miracles, or evidence of their absence, we should seek to accurately report what the evidence is about history of events.
Since the mid-1800âs, it has been clear that the geological evidence does not allow a global flood, and advances in physics have raised further problems. But a global flood imposes the modern concept of a globe on the biblical account, which merely describes a devastating regional flood. There is evidence of plenty of those happening over the years, though we canât pin down a specific Mesopotamian flood layer as definitely being the one in question.
Within the physical course of evolution, there is no clear need for intervention-style action. My informed guess is that God used natural law-type mechanisms for the physical course of evolution. The Bible affirms that humans have a unique spiritual status, but does not give detail on the mechanisms of making us that way; nor is it a question that is amenable to experimental investigation.
5 Likes
Spoken like a true scientist.
People of faith tend to be a little less reliant on what can or cannot be demonstrated, and besides, if God wished to make the Heavens and the earth in 6 days but leave trail of breadcrumbs to indicate otherwise, how would we know?
The point being, there is a lot of derision aimed at people of faith that is unjustifiable whether science says so or not. Faith is not about science or the demonstration of it.
I find the treatment of YECs on this forum disgusting.
Richard
1 Like