By “lack of control”, I was referring to a reasonable thought process suggested by most Deists. It is that God created the framework that made everything subsequent to that event possible. If so, He then gave up control beyond creation, and events evolved to become what we see today. That theory (might) allows for evolution to have occurred with truly random mutations and species alterations, horrific events that He could have stopped, and personal choices that result in bad outcomes. Those things are hard to explain if God is omniscient and omnipotent, otherwise He can be assumed to be other than a benevolent God.
You mistake my point. It was that Deism does not allow the shepherding of the flock. Your description of a shepherd is exactly the same (as I had suggested) when you say:
Tending to a flock is intervening and control. Perhaps it would be better to avoid interjecting the term Deism since it has to be defined by everyone who uses it. The possibility I was referring to could be stipulated as this theoretical premise (I thought was Deism, but perhaps not): that God created the universe of H and He. He continued with sorting elements into our periodic table. Then He placed them in a structure we call DNA and RNA. Then created relationships of those molecules so that everything could evolve. Then He left it alone to do exactly that. If, a big if, that happened, then everything we see today is more logically understood, since God has no control over those events. But the implications of that are of course huge. It means no miracles, only coincidental circumstances.
Those are not my beliefs…I’m only postulating for others who might use that scenario to explain and make more logical what we see today.
And that is the problem taking God out of His creation. Be it the watchmaker, or the patiant observer, or any other analogy you care to postulate the reality of evolution is hard to reconcile with the Biblical view of God.
Let’s admit it, we are bombarded by evolutionary talk. You cannot watch anything about nature without them referencing some evolutionary timeline. It is entrenched in modern knowledge and the common or garden watcher has no choice but to just accept it. There is never any sort of caveat or suggestion that there is any doubt in what is declared.
I guess most Christians have a sort of protective cognitive disonance on the line of “we can’t resolve it so we won;t think about it. There is probably an answer but we do not know it so we will just continue believing that God did it.”
Those of us who try and resolve it are attacked on all sides, both from the scientific community and the Biblical hardliners.
Whether we like it or not the Bible is emphatic that creation is not random or self-made. If Genesis 1 means anything at all it is that God created. It would seem ludicrous to suggest therefore that there was no method, or design within that creation.
The Bible also states that humanity has a unique relationship with God so the idea that we are just the result of some random deviations via virtually every other creature (en route) until we get to where we are now, would also seem ludicrous.
There have been a few “suggestions” here.
that the deviations are not random but controlled
that the structure of evolution is such that humanity was inevitable (He just had to wait for it)
That God intervened periodically when evolution went in the wrong direction
That there is an undiscernible presence of God that Science (and we) cannot detect.
I am ignoring the idea that God is not involved at all.
I am not throwing my proverbial hat into any of these, or suggesting an alternative
Suffice it to say I do believe that if God is the creator He would have more than a passing interest in how it turned out. If you do not wish to call that designing then so be it. (We are then talking semantics not theology)
This is what I’ve noticed about young earthers/old earthers.
They don’t understand chemistry, geology, biology, ecology, sexual orientation, gender, how diseases spread, the speed of light and so on.
What is one thing to you that undeniably proves the supernatural? Something that proves it, or can be repeated. What is it that evidence so clear anyone who does not see it must be stupid?
Intervening? Yes. Control? No. It is the same with teachers and parents with children. Yes they intervene. No they do not control them.
It is true SOME teachers and parents vainly TRY to regiment and control their children. But I do not think these are good teachers and parents. All of my experience demonstrates this obsession with power and control in these teachers and parents is a flaw and weakness which detracts from teaching and raising children. The good teachers and parents understand and allow for the differences of children in how they learn and what they need. Good parenting/teaching is a balance between employing your education or life experience and letting the child teach you how to be what they need.
The God, I believe in, is the epitome of such a good teacher and parent knowing exactly what each of us needs. Religions/churches based on forcing everyone into some kind of uniformity of thought and behavior is not a good religion/church and only lends support to those accusing Christianity of being something evil.
I don’t believe that. I believe we are closing in fast on the process of abiogenesis and prebiotic evolution. Yes I think God designed the laws of nature to support complexity and self-organizing processes sufficient for the development of life. Yes I think God was involved in that development but in the role of shepherd rather than designer. The shepherd guides from the outside manipulating the environment in order to provide food and protection. It is not a matter of what God is capable of but what He wants. He is seeking relationships not control.
No the problem is the gods made in image of control freaks who have to control everything because they lack the social skills needed for relationships.
But that is Deism which I have seen first hand leads rather quickly to atheism, because a god which has nothing to do with the living of our lives is only a speculation empty of real meaning in human existence. Frankly many atheists will admit to such a possibility but cannot see why anyone should care one way or another.
You have the right to believe what you want. You do not have the right to impose those beliefs onto everyone else.
By all mean continue with this defunct version of Christianity which nobody has any good reason to believe in. Meanwhile I will go with a vastly more healthy version of Christianity which promotes a healthy relationship with people and science – one which has a future and believes in a future rather than hoping for an end of the world in death and judgement.
You have a jaundiced view of me and the Christian faith that I represent. (if badly)
And you have a very jaundiced view of what constitutes design and or power.(or the need for it) Your claims about power and the need for it have been strongly denieed and you have no proof other than your opions.
I notice only that you have avoided speaking to the issue. Do you perhaps think your position on this would be embarrassing? If you had simply spoken against this you would have had only my happy congratulations that you agree with me on this at least.
You have a very jaundiced view of evolution and science as well as the Christian faith I represent.
On the contrary it is a logical necessity to distinguish living things from machines. For those who want people to be robots they can control this isn’t a problem. For those who feel a need to regiment and control children this is justification.
I think the childishness was in the words themselves. I often reflect things like this back so the person can see the childishness of the words for themselves. But a moderator should frankly delete these portions of both posts because they are waste of everyone’s time and not worth reading.
Overall I would agree with these suggestions. What I emphasize would perhaps be characterized as not using science as theology. We cannot (or should not) avoid the fact that Christianity advocates a mystery - we are humans who are part of the Creation; God transcends the Creation, not us. The place for biology and the inadequate notion(s) provided by the paradigm from Darwin, is for biologist to discuss and debate. The personal relationship with God, through His Son, and by the Grace of God, is cemented in the Christian faith.
Indeed God did it. Also, science seeks to a deeper understanding of the universe and its chemistry. It is not random in the sense that we would discuss theology, while scientific methods include stochastic and chaotic treatments. We need to understand this if we want fruitfull discussions instead of pointless arguments.
We are talking past one another, which is not uncommon when terms are not well defined. My statements were made under the assumption that a God that intervened was exercizing some degree of action, and that is some form of control. You nit-pick that by insisting that one can “intervene” without such exercise of control. OK, have it your way. So now, to discuss the original point of a Deist God who put it in motion but only “intervened” but did not “control”, what examples do you apply to “intervention” that do not in some way alter an outcome? He could intervene with a miracle for one to see, and thus perhaps alter his behavior? He could intervene with a communication to ones soul and influence him? I’m struggling for a debate on the concept, not nit-picking terminology. I think you know what I meant by the original comment, but want to avoid the issue.
Far late to the conversation, but have been out, and while out read @DOL Denis Lamoureux’s book regarding his personal spiritual journey, and was touched by this observation he shared. By the way, his book is inspiring and a good read, as well as easily affordable on Kindle. Highly recommended.
“The two speakers that impressed me the most at the C.S. Lewis conference were both evolutionists and evangelical Christians. Harvard University astronomer Owen Gingerich pointed out that the traditional belief in intelligent design does not deal with God-of-the-gaps miraculous interventions, as promoted by ID Theory. Instead, design deals with the impact of the creation on people pointing them toward the existence of God. Gingerich then argued that as science advances, more and greater evidence for intelligent design emerges. In this way, new scientific evidence continually strengthens our belief in the reality of a Creator.”
— Struggling with God & Origins: A Personal Story by Denis O. Lamoureux
Or when you keep ignoring the definitions which have been given and documented.
The Deist God does not intervene. He doesn’t have to because He has created a machine which only does what He designed it to do. You keep trying to twist the Deist God into meaning the exact opposite.
definition of Deism from Oxford Languages referenced by Google
belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.
Huh??? I do no such thing!
Having an impact on the outcome does not equal control. This should be perfectly obvious for examples abound endlessly in our own lives. Or do have some delusion that you are in control the events of your life? Or are you claiming that since you do not control the events of your life, you therefore have no impact on the events of your life. It is hard for me to understand why you would pursue such an obviously incorrect line of thinking.
God does many things seeking to influence our actions and to help us in many many different ways. But that is not the same as control. Our lives and history is a story we write together with contributions from both God and us. That is what a relationship is. If both do not contribute to the outcome then it is not a real relationship – it is control. And does God always get what He wants? Clearly not! Read Genesis 6, for example. But I would have thought that obvious as well.
At most we can only say that God has more control over things than we do. He is greater than us in both power and knowledge. To be sure great things are possible even with God alone seeking to achieve something, but with a little cooperation from us and even greater things are possible. Though to be sure, this is largely because God chooses it to be so, and not because God is incapable. He wants a relationship and He wants us to be responsible.
I’m not playing a game. I said there is no evidence for the supernatural that I see in response to your statement that someone would have to be stupid to not see evidence for God. So if you don’t have an answer… that’s not my issue. There is no point in me proving a negative. It’s on you to prove it exists and then we can dig into that specific claim.
So part of your response is you know there is a good because you see women that you find attractive? Can you explain how that proves the supernatural? It just seems more like you have your own idea of what’s beautiful and some women just happen to have the genetics and lifestyle that matches your personal preference.
Though it’s been said…. You are mistaken that I don’t believe in God. I never said that. Just pay attention as best as you can to what’s said and try to avoid presumptions. I look forward to your defense that women you find pretty equals proof of the supernatural.
Romans 1:18-21
New American Standard Bible
Unbelief and Its Consequences
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened.
You’ll notice by reading this that it’s about paganism. You’ll see that in the next verses following the ones i cited.
A few things.
You interjected “ atheists “ into the verse but that’s not there. Atheism was not even really a thing then as far as we know. So he was referring to pagans. You also seemed to try to force the “evidence” here as science. That’s not in the verse either. It’s about the supernatural. We can see that not only from there but by looking at key words.
Thanks for the mention of a great book that I also enjoyed, Phil.
Can you comment more on the difference here? The sense of wonder and thankfulness, recognition of a designer, can still be mistaken, I would think. It’s not quantifiable to me. It’s also difficult for me to continue to see the evidence of design as clearly in things that seem “evil” but natural. So, I am concerned that relying on this stands on shifting sand.
Thanks again for the good mention. Testimony is very important–and Dr Lamoureux has gone through a lot–more than any of the other of us, I imagine. I can only guess at the turmoil of studying evolution, YEC, and perhaps even more, higher criticism in Toronto.