He is a notable person in the history of Christianity in the U.K., that’s all. The multitude of God’s providential interventions in answering his prayers is amazing. He was notable for having started several orphanages, among other things. George Müller - Wikipedia
Were you suggesting that about George Müller? (A little reading first might have prevented your being so funny. Don’t quit your day job to become a comedian. 
) We would all do well to emulate him even a little!
I don’t pray to try to get God to change His mind; I try to follow how Jesus said it in Gethsemane. But praying about something that is important to me does always help me relate better to God. And one important part of being able to accept when God doesn’t answer my prayer the way I would have liked is to really accept that I don’t get to tell Ged why He put me into this world, at this time and place.
Neither do I. What you have seen is part of an ongoing disagreement about how much God controls. Sometimes in this sort of discussion hyperbolae can appear.
You agree that we pray for “God’s kingdom to come on earth”. And our prayers are to align urselves with Him rather than to demand He listen to us, but Christ does talk of earnest pettitions to change God’s mind or to encourage Him to act in out favourr, so it is not a completely false attitude.
Richard
From what Ihave seen in this thread, I am certain that the various commenters all have different understanding of what the simple word “control” means! And I would take that to a higher level, and propose a theory that human understanding of words is just like snowflakes: No two are alike.
Whether this is true or not is not able to be determined, because none of us can really see into anyone else’s mind. However, it is definitely true that every person’s understanding of any word is dependent on that person’s life experiences.
The point is one that has been stated quite well in this thread, that, in order to have a meaningful discussion about complex abstract issues, we must be as clear as possible about the terms we are using. It does seem to me that it can be much better to discuss the possible different interpretations of a term rather than simply ignore those by trying not to use the term at all.
So here is one term from this (and other) discussions: Evolution. I am virtually certain that Richard uses this term to mean something that none of those arguing with him believe the term means. And this leads directly to both sides talking past the other.
Richard, in the scientific community, Evolution says nothing about whether God exists, or not. Even Evolutionary Theory that concludes that all life on earth appears to have descended from the same original life form does not say anything about whether God exists, or God was involved at any stage, in any manner. Please, for all participants, do not use your personal interpretation of what you think Evolution means and impose your interpretation of what it means onto what someone else writes.
The next word with a lot of different interpretations is “control”! How much control has a being exerted when he or she initiates a sequence of actions that are tightly coupled and very predictable? How much control has that person exerted when the actions are irrevocably initiated, but the person did not know the consequences of the initiating action? And how much control is an observer exerting who knows what the consequences will be and yet chooses not to intervene? And how much control is that same observer exerting when he or she does choose to intervene?
All of these questions seem to me to be right at the heart of interactions between parents and children, and between God and us humans.
I believe that God knows exactly what actions I will choose in the future, knows exactly what the results of those actions will be (intended and unintended consequences), and has intentionally decided whether (and how) to intervene - which He does in ways that occasionally are discernable, or at least subjectively identifiable, but most often it is not possible to identify explicit intervention by God.
I believe that God created this universe, and put us into it, because He has good reasons to do that. I am certain that no human can even begin to understand the totality of God’s reasons.
It is by faith that I can trust that God knows better than I do what is really good for me, for my entire eternal being. I can only see what is going on in this life, can only influence what is happening in this life for other people. So this life has to be a primary focus in determining what I should do. The only real influence my belief in Jesus has on my actions is to give me the reason for choosing what to do.
So what I believe about control is that God does know what will happen, does intervene when necessary so that His will is done. And we humans are often way off base when we think we know exactly what God wants us to do, instead of realizing that what He really wants is that we choose to do whatever we choose to do because we love Him, and because we love our neighbors.
I also believe very strongly that God comes to each of us where we each are. He can work with each of us to develop a good relationship, even though we have very different understanding of who He is, and what we think He wants. I dare not claim that any other person must have the same understanding of God, or God’s control, as I have.
I have no idea what you think you have seen but you have actually stated what I see evolution means.
What I also see is that people here see God in evolution, but talk the scientific definition. IOW they do not talk what they beleive.
I make no bones about it. I want God in evolution, but He is not in the scientific theory that is taught.
Richard
(You are in effect quoting @RichardG and asking me, right?)
Good question. Somehow biology isn’t science but you can include God scientifically. Go figure.
First an apology to all of you who have been through this discussion before: I haven’t been here for some of the previous discussions that, according to comments from both sides, have been going on for some time, so please forgive me if I end up only saying the same things as have been said before. On the other hand, sometimes someone trying to phrase the issue in slightly different terms can help improve clarification and understanding.
Richard, if you are claiming the science is wrong, then you have to demonstrate that the science is wrong, not just point out that the science does not agree with what you believe from a religious perspective. This is the crux of the separation of science and religion, an absolutely crucial aspect of people being able to trust science to build an airplane that works, air conditioning that effectively uses the power grid, and enables the active involvement in science of people with different religious beliefs. I know from first hand experience in working on complex spacecraft data collection and analysis issues that it is absolutely critical for the entire team to be focussed on the problem at hand, in order to make any meaningful progress.
The basic fact is that there is no scientific, objective, observational proof that God exists. If God does exist, as you and I believe (and also @Dale and @St.Roymond to name just two of the many) then it is important to remember the implications of this basic fact when you seem to insist that scientists must explicitly note how God fits into the scientific observational viewpoint. So back to the question that @St.Roymond has asked you several times, and you have failed to answer with anything remotely resembling a valid scientific arguement: What scientific justification do you have that shows the scientific claims that have been made is demonstrably bad science? This must be a scientific justification, not a religious justification.
If you cannot show a scientific reason for your claims, then you have no valid rationale for telling any of us that our absolutely correct, and totally necessary, separation of science and religion is wrong.
If you are really upset that the fact that God has chosen not to show Himself objectively, and that then some atheists put religion into science by claiming (unscientifically, in my not so humble opinion, as a PhD in Physics) that the lack of observation is “proof” that God doesn’t exist, then focus your comments on that specific point. I do agree most completely that there is no evidence that God does not exist! But that is a rather large difference from trying to make the unsupportable claim that there is observational, objective proof of God’s existence.
To me, the only logical way to understand the fact that there is no observational, objective proof of His existence in His creation, if God exists, as I believe based on subjective information, God has chosen not to leave that proof. And if that is God’s choice, there is nothing I, or any other human, can say or do to make it otherwise.
Regarding the title question, chicken or egg?
In my experience, I would say that the strongest adherents to the absolute truth of the bible that I know refuse to believe the scientific fact that God has chosen not to reveal Himself objectively. It might well be that this is at the core of YEC antagonism to science. If science is going to claim something that leaves even God’s existence as ambiguos,… “That couldn’t possibly be the approach that the God who gave me a book of perfect knowledge would take!” (It is even obvious to some of them that, if God has chosen to create a world where His very existence is not provable, then there cannot be any one single revelation that is so absolutely true that it must be true for even those who don’t believe that that particular revelation is absolutely true. That is, if God may or may not exist, then it is not provable that anything came straight from God.)
Of course we see God in evolution, but that is not because of science. And we talk about it when we are talking theologically, because God is the creator and he undergirds all of reality, natural reality and spiritual reality.
“IOW they do not talk what they believe” is a silly self-righteous accusation of hypocrisy by someone who cannot see what is really the elephant in the room, and that is the inability to distinguish between science and religion, to distinguish between science and theology, to distinguish between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism, to distinguish between nature and the supernatural when actually doing science and teaching it and how it is done.
God is in evolution, just not in the science of evolution. Of course “He is not in the scientific theory that is taught”.
How can he be. By now, you should be able to answer that because it is a no-brainer. What does science deal with and exclusively so? The physical realm, not the metaphysical; the natural realm and not the supernatural; the methodological realm, not the philosophical and religious realm.
So want as intensely you may, you are not going to erase the realities of those distinctions and the truth of those facts.
Scientific facts say nothing about God.
Actually he has, just not scientifically. His M.O. is objectively recognizable in Factual evidence for Christians to rejoice in, remember and recount, and for true seekers to ponder.
So, from that statement it appears you are saying that people with a dogmatic or binary type thought process are predisposed and so self select to be YEC adherents. That tends to be my impression as well, that for the most part, biblical literalists are born, not made.
Isn’t that what I just said? That there is no objective, observable, and maybe I need to add indisputable evidence of God’s existence in God’s creation? You are not using the same meaning, by quite a wide margin, that I am using for the terms “subjective” and “objective”! Poorly defined terms significantly contribute to the confusion.
So if I said God has not revealed Himself scientifically (instead of trying to explain what I meant) would you agree with me? As you point out, the proofs you present might, or might not, be considered adequate in a court case. They do not provide the repeatable, testable means of claiming scientific observational objectivity that I am famiiar with in submitting papers for publication in reviewed journals (or even reviewed submissions to scientific conferences, for both printing in the proceedings, and for presenting at the meetings).
And you don’t have to convince me that God exists; She has shown Herself to me personally! And if you take offense at the pronoun, be very careful. God is not male or female, like we humans are, and God does come to different people in different ways - where we are, not insisting that we go and find Him where He is hiding.
But none of those ways are available for scientific investigation, especially not available for preparing a test case, predicting how God will show up, and executing the test case and verifying that God really did show up as predicted.
The bottom line point seems to stand: There is no way of determining from the study of the physical universe whether or not God exists.
And my point holds: if God exists (as I believe, from other non-scientific reports and experiences), then it is God’s choice that His presence is hidden, and it might be better use of our intellectual efforts to try to understand why God does that, than to engage in a futile effort to prove something that God has chosen to make unprovable.
I do not have to do anything. Especially using science.
That is just an excuse to ignore your faith when talking about science.
Who is arguing?That is not the point!
Why?
Everybody seems to think I am not a scientist. Why should i be bound by sciece?
Fallacy.
Either you are a Christian or you are not. At best you seem to be a Revelation-type luke warm one.
Why should I be upset about that. I do not use or need science in my faith. I do not reject it, but I see no need to worship it either. (oops)
what a wonderful get-out.
Christianity is not about proving or even identifying God or His works. it is about unseen and unproven faith.
Science is about proving or seeing. Which methodology are you promoting while teaching evolution?
Richard
PS, yes all these arguments have been tried and failed.
Richard
Not the way it reads. Doesn’t that say there is such a fact? I refuse to believe that ‘scientific fact’ too. How can there be any scientific fact about God, yea or nay?
There is no scientifically testable evidence of God’s existence.
Subjective: subject to feeling or sensation. Don’t confuse personal with subjective. The former does not necessarily imply the latter, but the latter probably does imply the former.
Objective: factual. Make a distinction between fact and scientific fact.
It is a fact that I personally am seeing what I subjectively perceive to be black letters on a white background on my iPad right now. (I could hypothetically be mistaken about the colors because they are subjectively perceived.) Without maybe a PET scan and/or some EEG electrodes plus some science that probably doesn’t exist yet, that fact won’t be a demonstrable scientific fact for a while yet. But it is still a fact, a fact about my perceptions, nothing subjective about it. You, of course, may choose to believe that fact or disbelieve it for whatever reason.
I will maintain that Phil Yancey had an objective experience with God. Likewise Maggie and Rich Stearns. There are discernible facts involved. Deniers will deny, but that will not change the objectivity of the facts.
I do. He talks about himself in exclusively male terms. Maybe some will think that’s patriarchal, but I respect his choice. Father and Son. One Being with the Holy Spirit.
And about the Holy Spirit,
So take more care.
Psalm 19
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
Romans 1:20
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
If science truly tries to understand the world around us at its deepest level and those scriptures are correct, how is your statement true? The Creator is not reflected in His creation?
You are miscuing on the term science and the figurative nature of those verses. Psalm 19 and Romans 1 were true before modern science existed. Science itself, literally and methodologically, says nothing about God.
We certainly agree about the metaphorical meanings of those verses!
They are not true anymore or is your point that they were true before science (and still true today) and not tied to science? Even if so, I would think science— a deeper understanding of creation would just deepen His divine nature we see in the world around us.
If you studied all my lesson plans and activities, you would be able to figure out some things about me. I don’t take God out of science. Science studies God because it studies His work.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.