I see theism opposed and laughed at online repeatedly in many circles for simply being theism. That started with the whole “new atheists” phase of the 2000’s. In the real world, in my area the question is often just avoided in regular day to day life and a lot of people don’t seem to think about what I would deem the bigger issues in life very much. . Hypocrites, frauds, liars, grifters and sex offenders come from all walks of life and should be opposed.
In one sense you still have to “believe” even in this. The word believe means: “accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.” You do have to trust in your senses, your thoughts correspond to reality, accept the physical world is real (aka we are not brains in a vat or whatnot), trust your memory and so on. I think what you mean to say, or all that can really be said is some beliefs are not controversial so you say we “know” them to be true.
You are mixing up what James is essentially saying. He is saying “sure, even the demons know God exists and is real” but that doesn’t mean they are following God or doing his bidding. That is the sense I read James using “believe” in. But for Paul, belief is probably best considered as following and putting your trust in Jesus Christ as the means of your salvation.
I feel like you are missing what I said because you are viewing the words through a “know vs believe” sense and that is not what Paul or James mean, nor what I quoted James to say.
Your question is using the words differently. To me as I am using the terms you first sentence quoted above reads as: Why is it necessary to follow God to follow God? I mean it’s just the law of non-contradiction.
As for the rest, this is the trap many modern people fall into. God is treated like an object or being that allegedly exists in our universe (real or imagined). But God is the source of all being itself. So when you say the following:
I’d say that vision of god is very small. I don’t actually believe in what you offer as God. I’d say vampires, dragons and zombies are all made up. They are certainly not necessary nor do they ground and sustain being itself every instant. Treating God as a thing or being among many is a straw man and that is not the God I worship. That is why you can say:
I see the exact opposite in everything. The world only exists because God creates and sustains it at every instant. That is the logical conclusion of creation ex nihilo to me. Maybe some are just looking for “supernatural miracles” they think can scientifically prove God. Maybe some people want to see a limb grow from nothing in front of them. Apparently they like low hanging fruit because everything that exists provides them with exactly what they are seeking.
And comparing God to vampires or dragons is a category mistake. It is like confusing triangularity with specific triangles. As Feser says:
Sin or even the fall–the issue under consideration in this topic-- can present a disconnect between humans and God. Still, I share Feser’s view that the "hiddenness of God’ is vastly overstated. Natural theology does the job fine. It’s not so much the “hiddenness of God” as it is the person’s rejection of evidence. Is evolution false because some people don’t believe it’s real? Does God not exist because some people reject the evidence presented? The question of divine hiddenness is more: “why does God allow people to not believe in him” and that becomes simple to answer.
If that is a simple answer I would hate to see a complex one.
It is overthought and very human,
Do you really think that God’s existence is obvious? And is that before or after the first leap of faith?
The concept or need for God may be universal, but the existence of God?
Are you claiming that Pantheons and other human constructs are actually God?
I am sorry but this whole quote of yours makes no sense to me.
Why does God allow people not to beleie in him?
Because He does not impose Himself.
That is the simple answer.
As a God of faith, only people interested or of like mind go looking for Him. Those who see no use for God or relevance will not take any notice unless they had no choice.
God does not stay invisible to those who look for Him. In fact “looking for Him” is the wrong term. Other religions look for God. Christianity is the only faith where God stands at the door and knocks.
And yet, despite everything God has revealed still people use their own view of Him. They impose human Justice onto Him. They insist that He wants perfection. They insist that He wants them to waste away this life on worship and devotion and self sacrifice. The invent righteousness They do not listen when He says
“I forgive you!”
Instead they take forgiveness as a one off deal after which they must behave or else! Rubbish.
This life is not a rite of passage. This life is what matters, not the next one.
Yes!
(but not completely)
The notion that what we see or discern must be right is vanity.
Humans get it wrong and that includes scientists. I don’t care how careful they are, or diligent, or cross referenced. They are still wrong if they think we are a cosmic fluke or that life revolves around survival of the fittest!
I am very careful to try and live my life correctly but I still fail. Why can’t scientists learn humility?
I don’t share the missionary exuberance of the last part. In fact, it seems a bit unscientific to me. But I have no issue affirming that as of right now there is solid evidence for the out of Africa model of human origins. I do believe some experts have put forth and still maintain a multi-regional model but this is not an area of expertise to me. Genetic evidence has caused most scientists to accept an out of Africa model as far as I am aware.
You missed the point of my response. I tagged Richard because he asked why you accept the one anachronism only out of all of them. I never denied all the other anachronisms nor needed a list of them. I simple said we accept the one because of what we find in the New Testament and church tradition. Otherwise this would be completely arbitrary to even believe that one. I’d just call it coincidence after rejecting the other 86% of the account as mythological anachronism.
That it is not an obvious mythological anachronism does not mean it is true either or anything more than lucky. A broke clock is right twice a day… It is the NT and Church tradition that guides me in trying to determine if we can accept this 1 anachronism out of the 7 as real. @RichardG is absolutely correct that the decision would otherwise be arbitrary. That was my point. You seem to link up the innocence of Adam and Eve and their transition to sinners with human innocence to when thy acquired morality. Okay, I see the parallels but whether that was intended or not is another issue. Maybe that presents a way of salvaging Paul’s thoughts and church tradition.
I may be misunderstanding you but from my perspective that looks more like growth than a fall. Children maturing is not a sin in my view. Rather than Adam an Eve falling, they would actually be standing up. Clearly I must be misunderstanding you because in your paper you obviously recognize this:
Jay: Among human beings, every culture recognizes an age of maturity when children are initiated into adult society and held respon- sible for their actions . Younger children, being immature, are exempt . Societies do not jail toddlers when they break the law; only a mature person can be morally culpable . Thus, there are three categories of moral culpability: Guilty Adult, Immature Child, and Innocent Animal .
This is way too aggressive. I am talking about variations within how human evolution is understood by non-YEC scientists. I don’t read young earth literature. Nor is your passive aggressive “legitimate experts” meaningful. I put “human” in quotes because as I clearly articulated, I am not using the term “human” necessarily like a scientist or you would. A Neanderthal is considered a human to scientists. But to me, if they did not have souls, I would consider them an animal and not a human. For me, the distinction between an animal and human is that the former do not have souls in the sense I understand them. I believe a full human entails having both corporeal and incorporeal parts. A scientists cannot tell when in the long line of evolution when a specific animal was chosen to be given souls by God. That is not a scientific question. It is perfectly legitimate for me to distinguish between animals and humans this way on theological grounds. I am making sure you understand how I was using the term because you took exception to something I said earlier and I believe it was a result of this misunderstanding.
Richard is correct, you definitely started to go on a rant. Rough day?And as for my blizzard of words, you threw a 27 page paper at me, which I did download and skim parts.
It seems from your view that the evolution of humans mirrored Adam and Eve’s transition to from innocent animal to moral human. That’s fine. I am not sure that really covers the fullness of original sin and since Genesis gets so much other stuff wrong, that part might just be a baseless coincidence. For me, again, it’s Paul/NT and church tradition dictate why I car fanout A&E. I offered several other interpretations of the narrative that make sense as well (e.g attempted explanation of why bad stuff happens with a good God running the show which makes this last mythological anachronism just as false as the others).
My concern is that I am not sure how mere learned behavior through imitation is really original sin or the fall or how that extends it to all humanity. Isn’t imitating behavior and being selfish kind of built into evolution/our biology? I have no problem with the first group of genuine ensouled humans sinning as representatives of us all and causing us to live a life with the consequences. The solution (eternal life in Christ) far outweighs the punishment (temporary exile).
I would advise against reading philosophy books, scholarly journals, scientific publications, etc. then.
Were you expecting me to give you divine thoughts? I am not a deity, Richard, and neither are you. Let’s move past hollow rhetoric.
I think God’s is the source of all being and existence itself. Nothing in reality makes sense without God. I think the basics of biological evolution are also correct. People will find reasons to not believe in things that they do not want to for some reason. Even if the evidence for something is overwhelming, people will find reasons to not believe it. Maybe they are influenced by society and friends. Maybe they like autonomy and don’t want to give up sin or surrender their life to a higher power (garden story?). That people choose to not accept the evidence because they don’t know it, disagree with it, imagine it away or whatever does not change reality to me. If there is good evidence for God’s existence then God is not hiding. Period. Most people throughout history have believed in the supernatural to some degree. Did they all do so because the supernatural was hidden and unobvious the whole time?
I think the hiddenness of God as an argument is so prevalent today because people have turned God into a thing or being next to other things and beings. We want to put God in a test tube and verify his existence like we do other things. The non-classical version of god people mistakenly cling to today appears very hidden because it’s made up. We have traded in God for a lie.
No.
That is exactly what the quote said: the first paragraph ends with: “the fact that we have finite minds and free will.” Free will. God does not impose this.
Or maybe John 10:27: My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
That is not all he says and that fact that you claim “worship . . . devotion . . . [and] self sacrifice” is acting away life as a follower or Christ is mind boggling to me. Maybe try reading the words of the one you follow. I’d quote them to you but you would just wave them away as proof-text hunting g and posit your own view as superior to Jesus’s view (as told by the gospel authors at least).
It all matters. I am not sure how we got to this subject though.
Science doesn’t say we are a cosmic fluke. Some scientists think that and that is why they invent multiverses and such nonsense to avoid the absurd degree of fine tuning our universe exhibits for carbon-based life. A lot of the deepest levels of cosmology today are being driven by philosophical presuppositions that churn out unfalsifiable model after unfalsifiable model.
Survival of the fittest is very poorly understood. I don’t think it’s an actual principle. Some here say it’s a filter. Animals better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce. That is a tautology to me. It like saying small objects will make it through the colander and large objects will not. Remember, that evolution is a purely material model. Our universe has emergent systems and I believe a human is both corporeal and incorporeal.
I have even heard of some people view the fall in an atemporal sense. I can’t fathom how it is true but this world is the way it is because of the fall which was not an event in our timeline but what started it. That would clean things up but I don’t think as Christians we are supposed to view life as revolving around the survival of the fittest. But it seems true that those better adapted to their environment live. Fish out of water die. Humans submerged in water too long drown. That is just reality. We have the opportunity to help those in need today. That very much can be part of God’s plan.
Some do and some don’t. We can all use more humility. If you think your posts don’t come off that way at times you are delusional. One user here has taken to calling you “Pope Richard.” I think science is limited in what is can discover and learn but in those areas it can put a number on, it does quite well.
At any rate, I spent most of my morning here reading, replying and looking at Jay’s paper. I can say this topic has been informative for me and taught me some new things but I think its productivity is coming to an end. I think Jay’s paper raises some series issues with the first idea I presented in the OP. This idea needs to be taken seriously:
There never was an original sinner who invented sin, any more than one individual could invent a language, or one breeding pair could start a species . Speciation, language, sinfulness: All require a population.
I agree with you about the historicity being a mistake but science isn’t dictatorial even if a few practitioners and many adherents are that way. Science or logic used to argue for what is not primarily a matter of intellect is a mistake. The more reason is emphasized the more the mythos becomes covered over which otherwise might spark a connection with God.
it is one thing to show appreciation and thanks, it is another to get obsessive. most things in this life are in moderation. Excess is always frowned upon. Why does that not apply to religion? Oh, it does. We see fanatics and try to disown them. I wonder, just because the fanaticism is self hurting, does that make it OK?
Just because I do not take them as you do, does that mean i haven’t read them? That does seem to be the concensus around here. Everyone must accept Scripture in the way “insert name” does.
Ouch. And wrong.
Go on, quote away. Might be interesting.
But, do not claim things for me that I do not claim for myself.
Richard
Edit
When the an on the road to Jericho was in need:
Was it the Priest, who had devoted his life to Go
or the Levite who worked in the Temple
or the common man (Samaritan) who was praised?
In Matt25, the judgement:
Were the sheep those who had great faith or thsoe who did the right thing?
I don’t believe I ever commented on that issue. I certainty did not offer a defense or a critique of the mere possibility of existential inertia on some hypothetical level, nor do I really need to do so either. Deism (the machinists view of the universe) you are inquiring about is at odds with both scripture and natural theology (Thomist) in my view. Therefore, I reject it as an explanation for our universe on both grounds.
I think there is a radically big difference. I think language is the difference. But I think this is more than just capability for communication. I think language rivals, even surpasses, the representation capabilities of DNA, and is thus a basis for the self-organizing process of life we call the mind. Thus I think naturalism alone CAN adequately explain the difference.
I agree science has its limits, and I agree naturalism cannot completely describe reality. Therefore I believe in a spiritual aspect to it, including something which survives physical death, which includes the death of the mind. But I do not believe in a Hindu Greek Gnostic rational “soul” (non-physical entity) inhabiting the body. I do believe in a spiritual aspect to our existence (in common with all living things), but not something which has any part of the space-time structure of the universe. And for a description we should go to 1 Cor 15.
“rest of humanity”??? You mean rest of creation?
Different yes, but it could be anything and even as you state it here could be an exaggeration. It does not say either distinct or special. The words are “very good” as opposed to simply “good.” And the differences in the text look largely relational. Certainly the only substantial measurable difference is that of language.
Sure… especially Aristotle. But in the religion of Plato and the Gnostics I don’t think there is anything wonderful at all.
The only “soul” in the Bible means person or life.
absolute nonsense! Where are you getting that? Even the Bible doesn’t say such a thing. Genesis only says there is an “increase” of pain not that there is pain now where there was none.
Yes they can be interpreted as such. By why would you interpret them in a such a foolish way? The Bible itself understands the snake to represent a fallen angel. It is only too likely that the fall resulted in a distortion of man-woman relationships. Thorns and thistles do not exist everywhere on the earth. I don’t know what agriculture has to do with anything in the text. Acquiring food does not require intensive labor in every part of the world. Understanding Genesis 2-3 to be talking about a beginning of physical death makes no sense to me at all.
I make the same distinction without a magical belief in the nonphysical rational “souls” of the Hindus, Plato, and the Gnostics. For me the difference is the human mind based on language and the inspiration of God which brought the mind to life in Adam and Eve. I think the “fanout of A&E” derives from an excessive obsession with biology and trying to read this into the text of the Bible.
Sure. But the effect all depends on what is there to be imitated.
I think the fall is about the abuse of God’s gifts (namely the human mind) contrary to the requirements of life to learn from our mistakes. Thus the sin consists of self-destructive habits. And original sin is simply the first of these bad habits which are imitated by the next generation.
Nothing makes sense to you without God. Things make sense to other people just fine without God.
I wasn’t raised to believe in God, but I believe in God now. But personally I don’t see God adding all that much sense to anything. I don’t see Him answering questions or explaining things. Thus I think this dependence of sense upon God is likely only experienced by those raised in a belief in God who make this a part of the way their mind works.
Objective evidence comes from the laws of nature. Since God is not subject to these laws, objective evidence for God is impossible. Thus using Romans 1:20 contrary to this is bad interpretation which is not what the text says. The text assumes you believe in God and only then do you perceive such things in nature.
It is not evolutionary theory but an abuse of the theory to justify social abuses. The actual principle is natural selection. And the simple fact is that cooperation is the most successful survival strategy which dominates the history of evolution. Competition has a role to be sure, but it has severe limits on what it can accomplish. I see God resorting to this role of competition in the aftermath of the tower of Babel incident, so it is definitely an important part of the process. But cooperation does a lot more.
Whether God directly controlled the creation or not, it is very clear that there is automation or self healing within the make of the earth and meteorology.
however there are those who take Scripture to mean that God is permanently playing Atlas and holding the world in His hands (instead of on his shoulder)
Creation and maintenance are two different processes, as you well know. I, for one, do not see God as a “Tinkerer” adjusting and fine tuning the Creation He made, but rather that He made it to sustain itself despite the tinkering of Humans.
I also agree. This sustain interpretation looks like pan(en)theism to me. I I think it is dreamer God and not authentic creation. So I think the passages used to support this are just about God’s involvement in events to keep things on track with His providence.
Since I think God created for a relationship, I think He involves Himself in events. This is the difference between theism and Deism. But I think God’s involvement is within the laws of nature, which are not determinative or causally closed. However, changing the probability distributions is changing the laws of nature themselves. Thus I think God’s involvement is limited to statistical anomalies (miracles). God can do a great deal without resorting to magic in violation of the laws of nature which He created. But the use of this to prop up a magical Christianity contrary to all the objective evidence and our everyday experience of life is not reasonable.
I agree language is a big part of the difference but we disagree on the last part.
So your view might fit my definition of a soul which at its most simplest is the non-corporeal portion of a person.
The ghost in the machine has fallen on hard times.
Yes, I meant the rest of creation. I would simply say there is a difference and language is part of it. “Measurable” is not the only litmus test for me since I think humans have aspects that are non-physical. If true, we consist of measurable and immeasurable things. I am not so quick to reduce everything to materialism.
That is not the only definition of the soul people believed in.
I believe the intellect is non corporeal and can survive death, you seem to believe it was supernaturally created. Is that correct? Did God open the minds of all humans at the time, or just Adam and Eve and their children?
Without a mind and moral maturity to know better, imitation alone doesn’t lead to sin in my view.
Why the pretension? Of curse everything I state directly is my view. Do I need to correct you above and say" According to you, nothing makes sense to me without God. According to you things make sense to other people just fine without God. Your clarification was unnecessary.
No, it’s based on careful metaphysical arguments–whether correct or not.
God is the one who sustains these laws as you call them. I would classify metaphysics as objective and thus there can be objective evidence for God. There cannot be scientific evidence for God because God is not a thing or being that is to be explained like other things or being, but the ground of being itself. The creator and sustainer of all that is including every single subatomic particle of the universe. To me the laws of nature are just the tendency of things to behave a certain way by virtue of their nature. And science by default excludes God as an explanation. That argument becomes circular.
Concurrentism and secondary causes are not panentheism. A dreamer God? More like an understanding of God born out of careful metaphysical arguments demonstrating God as a necessary being, prime mover, non-composite being, etc. The arguments made, if true, require contingent things to depend on God at all times. They come from that and a number of passages of scripture which say God sustains at things at all times. This is not a dreamer version of God, it is the classical version held to by some of the greatest minds to ever live.
Miracles are not violations of nature. They go beyond nature. God cannot intervene in nature because there is no aspect of it He is not already upholding and sustaining.
That is not very clear and it is at odds with both scripture and metaphysical arguments from natural theology. God is the primary cause of every process that occurs. I’ll take GK Chesterton’s view over the one you are espousing:
“Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, “Do it again”; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, “Do it again” to the sun; and every evening, “Do it again” to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.”
So you are a deist.
Feser: For one thing, and as we have seen, nothing other than God possibly could exist even for an instant without God’s conserving action. This follows from a thing’s being composite rather than simple, from its being a mixture of actuality and potentiality, and from its having an essence distinct from its existence. For another thing, the resulting position would, again, be incoherent. For it was the idea that things cannot exist on their own even for an instant that led us to the idea of God as first cause in the first place. To say that these things might exist without God after all would once again be like climbing a ladder and then blasting it out from under one.
So, the correct view has to be the middle-ground concurrentist position according to which secondary causes are real That is to say, things other than God have real causal power even if they have it only in a secondary or derivative way insofar as they derive that power from God as first or underived cause. Occasionalism denies that secondary causes are real insofar as it says that only the first cause really causes anything. Mere conservationism denies that secondary causes are real insofar as it says that causes other than God have their causal power independently of God and thus do not have it in merely a derivative or secondary way.
It’s only magical because modern people don’t understand metaphysics and have fallen victim to scientism. That is why some think of miracles as violations of nature or maybe even as God intervening in nature. God can’t intervene in creation because there is no part of it He is not involved with at all times. God didn’t actually rest on day 7. My Father has been working until now as Jesus said. Miracles are only “violations” when we let deism sneak into our theology. I apologize for the length but I have spent a good amount of time here today. Here is a string of quotes on how I have come to view miracles using Feser, Davies and Ramelow from a. Thomistic perspective:
Except it does not reside in the body and is not the cause of anything we see. What I am talking about is outside the universe and only comes into play after we die.
Clearly, I do not reduce everything to materialism. I also do not leap to magical or supernatural explanations for natural phenomenon. Experience tells us this is a mistake.
But it seems to be yours – something nonphysical, responsible for intelligence, and residing in the body. Yes I believe in something nonphysical but not responsible for intelligence or residing in the body.
That we have a different understanding of sin I do not doubt. Your worry about moral maturity implies that your concern is mostly about justice and thus an obedience to dictated commands. My understanding of sin rejects this way of thinking and is all about consequences inherent in the things themselves – not disobedience but self-destructive habits. Justice has nothing to do with it.
I disagree. This is just an excuse to not respond to the issue in question. Are you agreeing that some people don’t require God to make sense of things, or do you think nobody can make sense of things without God?
LOL Such arguments are only rationalizations of what people already choose to believe.
I believe in a creator God not the dreamer God. God created these laws and thus they don’t require anyone to sustain them.
To me that applies only to spiritual things. Physical things have their existence from the space-time structure of the physical universe and their behavior thus derives from the space-time relationships to the whole. Thus there is a fundamental disconnect between their nature and their behavior. People can behave according to the effect of diseases or chemicals which have nothing at all to do with their nature.
Correct. They are statistical anomalies – not an alteration of the probability distributions which the laws of nature consist of.
I will always disagree with any claim that God cannot do something. God certainly can intervene in nature. God can do evil. However, I do not believe that God will do either of these two things. The laws of nature serve a purpose and thus God will not contradict them. He will not change the rules just to prop up religious leaders and their claims.
It is magical because the wizard doesn’t want you to look behind the curtain and ask any questions.
Example? How about Matthew 14? What question are we not supposed to ask? What was Jesus standing on? If He was standing of the surface of the water then He would have been bouncing around like a ping pong ball. So… he was standing on something underneath the water? The magical view forbids you to ask such a question. You are just suppose to believe it is magical powers.
You most certainly reduce to materialism. You define miracles as statistical anomalies. Jesus rising from the dead was a “statistical anomaly.” Say that out and actually listen to yourself.
Your response is how people only interested in rationalizing what they already believe would say. They dismiss all of Thomist metaphysics out of hand, caricature it or knock down straw men versions of it. This shows up over and over again in atheist literature and even by non-theist philosophers. What they almost never do is actually dialogue with accurate and learned formulations of cosmological arguments. Rather they just exist in a participate in an uncritical echo chamber thinking God’s existence can’t be proven. Defeated by materialism. There is nothing for us to discuss when you pronounce things incorrect by your own divine fiat. I can only bow down and say “Yes, Lord” or move past the person unwilling to engage in actual discussion.
So… you equate the refusal to reduce everything to magic and “Goddidit” with reducing everything to materialism. That way you can simply ignore the fact that they have specifically stated that they believe there is a spiritual (non-physical) aspect to reality.
Yeah, it is called honesty.
Some people reject metaphysics altogether. And some just believe the metaphysics of the middle ages before the beginnings of modern science.
As for me, I check each issue myself and make my own decisions about each issue of metaphysics (study of the nature of reality). That way I can make sure it is in agreement with objective observations of modern science.
Some miracles are events that are generally impossible to us, not “statistical anomalies.” Depending on how we define the word, all of our universe, at every instant, is a a bonafide God does it miracle. Not Goddidit. Goddoeasit.
I have never denied any of the brain’s role in our thinking process. I just don’t find all of thought or the mind strictly reducible to pure materialism or bottom up biology/chemistry/physics. I think only blind faith asserts the contrary. I also think a part of it is non-corporeal and survives death. It seems you might not reduce to strict materialism either because you claim God somehow opened the mind of Adam and Eve, whatever that means. Goddidit? Can you elaborate?
Of course, you have to read and understand an argument to actually offer anything substantive in response to it. I said God cannot intervene in nature because God is already running nature as its primary cause. You want God to jump in and do what is only already happening because God is doing that? It’s like asking a chef to step in and intervene and fix or adjust a sauce that he or she is already making. You want me to jump in and make the coffee I’m already making? You want me to hop in and start driving the car I’m already driving? You cannot intervene in what you are already doing. You have completely misunderstood my point. I am not limiting God. I am offering a much broader understanding of God’s role in creation than the unscriptural deists model you promote. I realize it’s not full deism because you do believe God interacts with us but it is the machinist view of creation. God made a machine and lets it run. Saying God can do evil is also a category error to me. God is good. Evil is contrary to God’s will. If there were moral standards existing external to God, he would be more properly called a god in my view. God doing evil is like God making a round square. It’s nonsense to me.
Clearly you are just grinding an axe here and rationalizing this issue based on ulterior motives. The church leaders power issue comes up repeatedly in your thinking. Some religious leaders (and all other leaders and people) have liked power, control money, sex etc. Welcome to earth. Boo hoo. Let’s just discuss the ideas instead of deflecting to ad hominem arguments about religious leaders wanting power and control. I could just as easily say it seems some want to control God and put Him in a box based on their philosophical interpretation of modern science. We all want that intellectual control and certainty. Some want to just prop up naturalists and their claims. I see a metal detector looking for bones on a beach.
You seem to think of the laws of nature as fixed or immutable but they are simply how God chooses to sustain existence every single moment in my view. Miracles don’t violate nature because nature is God’s doing at every instant. Miracles are God going beyond how he normally runs the show to serve his divine purposes. Apparently, you think God won’t do this but scripture is replete with instances of events that are impossible according to how scientists reconstruct “the laws of nature” with their own limited mathematical models. There are several different ways in which the laws of nature are understood.
And I would say the Aristotelian proof along with several other cosmological arguments disagrees with you. Nothing exists without God upholding it at every instant.
Sounds a lot like magic, or people thinking their limited mathematical models meant to learn truths about the things that can be mathematically modeled are the only path to truth or represent all of reality. But none of that is really at odds with the more precise formulation I quoted below:
“Laws of nature … are really about the dispositional properties of things, based on the kinds of things they are: things of kind A have a disposition to manifest quality F in conditions C, in virtue of being of nature N.
This disregards that there must be a first member in a hierarchal series and that is all you are ultimately describing.
Yes, that includes reading and understanding contrary views to our own. Not just reguritating what our echo chamber says or what we think we know from all the Pastor Bob’s and village atheists on the internet who have caricatured these arguments and attacked/promoted straw man versions of them.
I agree that modern science is very potent and we want our views to be consistent with what it finds.The problem is people like to over-reach with modern science and often confuse their philosophical interpretation of science with brute scientific knowledge. How we understand “laws of nature” is not monolithic.
Jesus didn’t walk on water. He was a charlatan that just walked on rocks. Got it. He didn’t control the weather, he just knew the storm would suddenly stop and the waves would instantly cease at the same time and he misled his followers into thinking the wind and sea obey him. Did he let them think he could exorcise demons? Surely those people were just sick, not demon possessed? How can a purely non-physical entity (demon) interact with a physical human. Souls are nonsense right. So shouldn’t demon possession be as well? Did he let them think he could raise the dead? Did he just pretend to multiply loaves and fish? Secretly the disciples went to the market and just bought enough food to feed 5,000 people? I’m really not sure how you explain these things or if you just think the stories are made up like critical scholars believe. Feel free to correct me but I have not even touched on all the other miracles not done by Jesus in scripture.
I do not think the triune Godhead that creates and sustains the entire physical universe, that incarnated Himself and walked among us as a Jew from Nazareth, could not actually walk on water or calm a sea. God cannot walk on water without uncontrollably bobbing? If you say so. I really must be missing something because earlier you said you always reject “God can’t do something” but not here. It’s almost like Jesus/the Father lack the potency of a water strider. Personally, I think you have naturalism blinders on and over-press what science can tell us. I think you have a strong philosophical interpretation of science and “laws of nature” that extends much closer to philosophical naturalism than I would personally agree with. I don’t view reality that way.
Yes I understand you want the gospel to be a magic show. Doesn’t change the fact that you deliberately ignored my assertion that there is a spiritual aspect to reality in order to claim I reduce everything to materialism.
But I don’t buy into this choice between just the brain or the insertion of a magical soul. I believe in the human mind which is neither. Nothing magical, just a self-organizing process in the medium of human language with not only its own needs but its own inheritance passed from one generation to another.
The words in the text are “breathed into them the breath of life.” Divine breath is where the word “inspiration” comes from. So what do I think God did? God spoke to them. No magic. Just ideas. Ideas which changed us from animals to human beings. Is that possible? I think so. I think ideas like love, justice, and persons are very powerful. So no I don’t think our humanity reduces to a biological species. I think it is more than that. And interestingly enough we even talk that way. People will say a person isn’t even human because of the way they behave contrary to these ideas which God taught us.
Yeah, I know. The dreamer god is responsible for everything. But I simply cannot be impressed by a god who only does what any child can do.
Nope. I am not somebody grown up in the church with resentment to religious leaders who abused their power. LOL I am someone raised by non-believers who thought religion was all a scam to control people. So for me it was a matter of discernment to see that religion had some value after all. It was not only about the use of religion as a tool of power, no matter how much people were using it that way. Thus I had to figure out the difference… when was it being used for the purpose of power over people and when was it something completely different.
The fact is that the laws of nature are mathematical equations. And no I see no need to turn those mathematical equations into a god. Seems like a lame sort of god to me.
Aristotle had many great ideas, but he definitely got things wrong, like his idea that heavier things fall faster than lighter things.
So your god is just the child down the street who is omnipotent in his own dreams. Got it.
Jesus didn’t claim to walk on water. The only charlatans here are the religiologs who require you to ask no questions and believe they speak for God. What did Jesus actually say?
The Son can do nothing of himself , but what he seeth the Father do. John 5:19
Guess Jesus is calling you a charlatan. Jesus could just see what the Father was doing. Miracles? Yes. Magical powers? No. Miracles are the work of a supernatural God and not the magic and violations of nature the charlatans want you to believe in when you don’t ask the questions you are not supposed to ask.
Want another example of asking questions you are not supposed to ask? Ok. In the feeding of the 5000, was the miracle that Jesus could make bread and fish appear out of nothing, or was the miracle that He could get people to share the food they already had?
No, I use skepticism rather liberally – for both the preachers AND the scholars pushing their own interpretations into the text. I find many of the arguments of the critical scholars to be rather far fetched. Do I ask the questions the religiologs don’t want us to ask? Definitely! I believe in Jesus. But no I don’t believe in those medieval metaphysical arguments or the charlatans who elevate themselves by talking about Jesus and turning His ministry into a magic show.
Aristotle’s thoughts on other matters in a prescientific time do not discredit all his metaphysics. This is a red herring and is employed by people too lazy to actually dialogue with steel manned versions of his argument as modernized by Thomists.
Describing careful metaphysical arguments that way shows you do not understand them nor have made any effort to. This is just as bad, if not far worse than how young earth creationists describe and caricature evolution.
Jesus walked on water per scripture. You can disagree with it if you want to. That is fine and Lord knows I disagree with parts. But as it sits, it is a miracle that is physically impossible to us per how the universe normally runs. Doesn’t matter if He did it via the father or his own divine power. What matters is you think the God of the entire universe who can genuinely lower himself and become man, cannot walk on water because he would bob up and down too much.
The miracles (there are two feeding miracles) according to how scripture narrates them are the former. According to your deist-like, Thomas Jefferson Bible, it would have to be the latter. Talking about magic, dreaming and making things up…. Well the irony is very real here in that you are making the account say something it absolutely does not. It does not say the people simply shared all their food and everyone ate. It says Jesus multiplied fishes and loaves and there was a lot left over.
Clearly Jesus is being described as doing exactly what God did in the Old Testament. Fishes and loves correspond to quail and manna from heaven. Does the OT also only describe the people as making their own manna from heaven and sharing it in the wilderness?
Miracles aren’t magic despite your repeated assertions to the contrary. Nor are they “statistical anomalies.” They are best understood as God going beyond how He normally runs the world.
You keep throwing terms out like magic. That is just pejoratively mischaracterizing religious faith like a militant atheist would. Some church leaders have been bad. Blah blah. I get it.
Some of them are far fetched, some of them are fallacious and some of them are well evidenced.
There are quite a number of scientific explanations of manna. Why don’t you try looking themselves up yourself? Come on… dare to ask the questions you are not supposed to ask. You know… like Darwin… who asked whether there might be a natural explanation of the species in the world.
Guess what…
You can still believe in God and spiritual things even if you do ask such questions.
