"Natural" Processes

Resha Caner said:

I've thought about this comment some more, and decided maybe it would be worth pursuing it to some extent. To be honest, my interest in pursuing it was that I didn't think I had received an answer to a previous question of mine (posed to GratiaCorpusChristi): What in the Bible leads you to believe God did not intervene in the creation beyond the "natural"?

So, I was curious how you might answer that ... at least as a starting point to a conversation about alternative interpretations of scientific data.

Click to expand...

Well, first, I think that God does sometimes intervene in the creation beyond the natural. We have the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the various miracles of healing (which some say continue to the present day), and, as you suggest, the miracles accompanying the Exodus and sundry others mentioned in scripture.

But I think we also have a clear testimony in scripture that God's interaction with creation is not limited to this type of direct action. God is always and at every moment, interacting with the creation in the ways we refer to as "natural". Scriptural references to this type of interaction include the growth of a seed or an embryo, bringing the seasonal rains in their due season, providing food for carnivorous animals and birds and guiding the stars in their courses.

Now, if by "creation" we mean the initial act of bringing something into existence out of nothing, I would tend to classify that as an intervention of the first type. Bringing nature into being in the first place is certainly an act beyond the natural. Endowing it with a governing order (which we refer to as "laws of nature") would in itself be something beyond the natural. Anything that refers to the initial generation of the natural is ipso facto beyond the natural.

But once the natural is established, does God continue to intervene in nature or to interact with nature? Most of the time, it would seem that God interacts with nature rather than interrupting nature with special effects.

Even some of the "special effects" may have come about more through an interaction with nature than through a direct intervention. Take for example the appearance of quails at the Israelite camp in the desert just when they were becoming frustrated by a lack of meat in their diet. Some have speculated that no direct divine action was required to bring the quails to the Israelites. They simply camped along a quail migration route during a migration. It would be a bit of an oxymoron to call that a "non-miraculous miracle". Maybe we should call it divine serendipity.

There are a number of instances which may be such divine serendipity; certain miracles are described in scripture as being produced by some natural phenomenon. But others clearly seem inconsistent with any natural phenomenon.

However, the main point is that scripture is pretty clear that God has various relations to the created universe, and miracle (as in direct, intervening action contrary to the basic laws of nature established at the first moment of creation) are only one type of divine action.

Now, let's try to tie that into a scientific view of the natural world. Many have suggested that the Big Bang is the initial moment of creation. No one knows what initiated it or could have initiated it. But it seems to be the moment in which energy, space and time were born and also the fundamental forces of nature such as electromagnetism, gravity and the strong and weak nuclear forces. For want of a better term, let us call this a miracle in the strong sense of the word. But from that point on, the scientific story is that all subsequent phenomena arose out of the interaction of the initial energy subject to the fundamental forces action on sub-atomic particles. IOW, the rest of the story of creation is, theologically, accomplished by divine interaction with, rather than intervention into, the ways of nature.

I won't say you get this idea straight out of scripture; it takes looking at both scripture and science together in the faith that the God who gave us scripture and the God who gave us creation are one and the same and when both are understood correctly, there is no contradiction between the testimony of scripture and the testimony of creation.

The important thing is that whatever relationship exists between God and creation in any event, it is always God who is the principal actor and initiating agent.

Resha Caner said:

I've thought about this comment some more, and decided maybe it would be worth pursuing it to some extent. To be honest, my interest in pursuing it was that I didn't think I had received an answer to a previous question of mine (posed to GratiaCorpusChristi): What in the Bible leads you to believe God did not intervene in the creation beyond the "natural"?

So, I was curious how you might answer that ... at least as a starting point to a conversation about alternative interpretations of scientific data.

I didn't realize it until now, but as it turns out, Gratia did eventually answer the question ... somewhat.

Click to expand...

I think maybe you need to consider what the difference is between natural and miraculous intervention - both from God's perspective and the human perspective. You might also want to consider how the Fall fits in to that - what fallen nature looks like might not be the same as what it would look like if there was no Fall. If God heals fallen nature in some instance (say, allowing someone old to conceive a child) is that working within nature or outside of it?
I appreciate his honesty, but it's not a satisfying answer because I can imagine the following hypothetical conversation:

Resha Caner said:

... let me ask ... two things: 1) Even if a "natural" explanation for the creation of man were possible, would it bother you if the Bible made an explicit statement, the meaning of which was irrefutably clear, that God directly intervened to create man?

Click to expand...

I do not agree with the 'explicit statement' interpretation. (So obviously it doesn't bother me.)

Resha Caner said:

2) Do you think some sort of denial of fact - some sort of mental gymnastic - is required to interpret Genesis 1:27 as meaning a direct, creative act of God?

Click to expand...

No so much a 'denial' or 'mental gymnastic'. I think it is the result of a presupposition implanted perhaps with no intent by those who cannot allow any other interpretation. Because the creation of man is listed separately from the plants and animals, it HAS to be a singular event. I don't agree.

Resha Caner said:

...move on to ... two questions: 1) Do you think God tells us every time He directly intervenes?

Click to expand...

Not 'every' time.

There are many instances in the Bible where the normal process of nature is 'altered' (at the least!) The dead returned to life, long term pillars of fire at night, fire from Heaven, sight and sound body restored and gallons of wine. All those were specified as miracles.

I know I've lived through and witnessed several miracles in my lifetime. None of which were 'announced' in the same way as Biblical records. In fact, in several instances, no one else noticed, let alone remarked them.

Resha Caner said:

2) If not, do you think science can always find a way to ascribe a natural cause to those direct interventions?

Click to expand...

NO! (he said laughing). For instance, the 'Big Bang'. Using various disciplines, 'science' can back track the existence of the Universe to the beginning - almost. They can get back to one Planck unit of time AFTER the 'bang'. (For the casual reader, a Planck unit is 10^-43 seconds. In actual digits, that is .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds.) The events of that period of time is uncalculable or indeterminate by modern understanding of the laws of nature.

Nor can any physicist offer any theory as to how the 'singularity' (the doodad that 'banged') got there in the first place. (Which is to say, God does not appear in equations, test tubes or the Hubble telescope).

Nor can doctors explain certain cures of various diseases in certain instances. The doctors cannot medically identify the reason for the 'cure'. Believers claim a miracle, atheists claim 'just one of those things'.

One last thing: All 'natural' or physical laws of the Universe were established by God when He created the Universe. So everything that happens (in terms of physical events) is by God's action.

Resha Caner said:

It would seem we agree that God acts in different ways, yes? That there is a sense in which we can call some of his actions "natural" and some of them "direct intervention"?

Would you also agree we could speculate on all kinds of different modes in which a god might act, but it means nothing unless we can distinguish those modes?

And, finally, would you agree that for our "natural" and "direct" modes there are cases where we could easily confuse the two (e.g. a pillar of cloud) unless God tells us which it is?

Click to expand...

I think we are hampered a lot by the limitations of language, and by the fact that language itself changes its meaning over time, and by the impossibility of directly transposing meaning from one language to another.

To take the first, you contrast "natural" and "direct" or "direct intervention", but that suggests that God's "natural" mode of action is not direct. It puts a distance in one mode of action that is not in another, and I don't think that is a valid distinction.

Another possible contrast is "natural" and "miraculous" but this runs us afoul of the other hazards. The New Testament term is 'semeion' (sign) and does not convey the idea of a contrast with what is natural. Jesus healing miracles were presented as signs of his divine commission. "Miracle" comes from a Latin term which evokes a sense of wonder. "Mira!" in modern Spanish means "Look!" (rather like the angel's "Behold" in KJV English) Why do we look? Or why are we told to look? Because there is something worth seeing. It may be unusual, strange, amazing; it may even be unnatural, but not necessarily.

The idea that miracle means "outside of nature" only comes about as the idea of "natural law" emerged in early modern times. "Natural law" is not a biblical concept. In biblical language all God's actions are "direct" whether they conform or conflict with our concept of "natural". So in some ways we are trying to impose on the bible a categorization which it does not recognize.

That's probably about as far as our agreement would go. I would say He has told us that the creation of man was a direct intervention, and you would seem to say it was not. But let me ask you these two things: 1) Even if a "natural" explanation for the creation of man were possible, would it bother you if the Bible made an explicit statement, the meaning of which was irrefutably clear, that God directly intervened to create man? 2) Do you think some sort of denial of fact - some sort of mental gymnastic - is required to interpret Genesis 1:27 as meaning a direct, creative act of God?

Click to expand...

1) It would bother me if the bible made an absolutely clear statement that is in direct contradiction to the witness of God's creation and which could not be ascribed to the state of knowledge of the biblical authors. For example, almost no Christian today is bothered by the clear statements in scripture about the heavenly bodies moving while the earth remains stable, established, firm, not moved. We know it is not the case that the earth is motionless at the centre of the cosmos, and that the motion of heavenly bodies across the sky is appearance due to the rotation of the earth, not to their own motion (though they do have motions of their own as well). But one way or another most Christians have made their peace with this apparent contradiction of scripture with nature. I think that is all that is really needed in the case of deep time, deep space and evolution as well. It just makes sense to recognize that biblical authors wrote in the context of the knowledge of their time, and that gives rise to assumptions and assertions that on the literal face of them come into conflict with our more expanded knowledge of nature.

The problem is not with the seeming contradiction, but with holding that the literal face of such statements is to be understood as "scientifically" correct because scripture is allegedly the immediate words of God. So then we come to doctrines of inspiration. What is it? How is it manifested? And we are a long way from science at all.

2) No.

Once we finish those two questions, we could move on to a specific focus of the "natural" if you would like. As part of that transition, I would ask these two questions: 1) Do you think God tells us every time He directly intervenes? 2) If not, do you think science can always find a way to ascribe a natural cause to those direct interventions?

Click to expand...

1) Yes. Go back to the biblical language of "sign". A miracle is a message; it is a sign from God to his people, sometimes to one person. There is no point to a sign or a signal which is never seen, no point to a miracle without a witness.

2) One can always speculate natural causes, but not always provide evidence of them. I have heard ideas of how the plagues of Egypt in the book of Exodus could all be explained by natural causes but it is all just-so storytelling, nothing definitive.

Resha Caner said:

Very true. I agree with you, and would be only too happy to pitch the idea of "natural law". However, based on your answers that follow, I think you understand what I'm after ... aside from your introduction of the word "miracle", which I'll get to later.

So, let's see if this works as an analogy. Someone is riding a bicycle without her hands. The motion of the bike is caused by her, both in using her feet to turn the pedals and produce forward motion and in leaning her body one way or another to steer a straight course. This is the "natural law" part. We can depend on the consistency of the forward motion and the straight path. But then she decides to turn, so she seizes the handle bars and turns the bike. That is the "direct intervention" part. In both cases she is the cause, yet the modes of behavior are different.

Click to expand...

That's pretty good, but let's note that it is also because of the "natural law" part that she must take the handle bars to make a turn, and further that in making a turn, she is still not violating any "natural law". IOW just as she was using "natural law" to ride without using her hands, she is also using "natural law" to make the turn.

Maybe my question wasn't clear. I understand what you're saying, but I meant to alleviate your concern. We're being hypothetical at the moment, so I'm not asking you to surrender any details - yet. You know I disagree, but for now I'll allow you the following: suppose we were to agree evolution is one of the "natural" processes, and that we also agreed on man's evolutionary history. Further suppose we agreed there was some evolutionary language in the Bible - that God indicated it was the natural process he put in motion when He created the world. But then there is also a verse that says God had to put his hands on the handlebars to create man. That even though man was always a possible outcome, the process, as he launched it at the beginning, was not going to select man, and so He had to step in and directly make some course corrections.

For example, maybe 200,000 years ago he had to directly stitch together the DNA of the first homo sapiens in the womb of its homo erectus ancestor(s) because it would never have emerged otherwise.

If there were a Bible verse that was irrefutably saying that, would that bother you?

Click to expand...

What would bother me is the idea that the process as launched at the beginning would not allow for a result God intended. But I would agree, on the bicycle analogy, that God might have to do some steering along the way.

Did you see the recent thread about pet peeves - things you get tired of answering repeatedly? This is one of mine. Science doesn't say what you said. What it says is that we can't know if the cosmos has a center or not. The earth very well could be the center, but we as humans can't know whether it is or not. In scientific terms it is meaningless to talk of a cosmic center, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

As I understand the scientific explanation, it is that any observer in any star system would see an observable universe which appears to be centred on the observer. And, as you say, there is no way to know if any of them has a truer view than any other.

But also, as I understand the scientific explanation, there really is no centre to the cosmos. It is like asking what the centre of the surface of a basketball is.

Whether the Bible actually claims some kind of cosmic center or not is also unknown. Given that we still use idioms like "sunrise", the Bible could simply be using idiom. Or, it could be that the psalmists mistakenly believed the earth was the center, but that in no way makes God a bad scientist. This just isn't a good example of why the Bible is wrong about science ... because it isn't. Anyway, moving on ...

Click to expand...

Actually, I don't thing "centre" applies to biblical language either. The biblical writers seem to speak in a more vertical language, heaven(s) above, waters above the heaven(s), earth below, and the waters under the earth (as well as Sheol, the pit, beneath the surface of the earth).

The notion of earth as a centre derives from the realization that earth is a sphere rather than a great island in the infinite ocean of the abyss. And it comes from Greek philosophy rather than the bible. (Which is why some Christian writers continued to resist this cosmology for several centuries.) By the time the New Testament was written, the Ptolemaic cosmos (or some variation of it) with its spheres within spheres within spheres, until one gets to the innermost sphere of the earth was pretty standard in Greek academies--though there is no hint of it in the New Testament itself. By the second century, when Greek-speaking and Greek-educated Christians were taking over the leadership of the church, it began to dominate Christian thought as well.

I think the big contrast between the biblical authors and ourselves is not about the relative place of sun and earth, but about which body moves and which remains at rest.

As I mentioned earlier, it was you who introduced the word "miracle" (sign), and so your answer becomes somewhat tautological. But that's not what I was getting at. As is constantly emphasized in my church, God is infinite, and so the Bible doesn't tell us everything about God. It only tells us what He wants to know.

I think it very likely He has directly intervened at some time, and yet had no need to tell us of it.

Click to expand...

That may be, but then we lose the concept of sign. And given its importance in scripture, I think we ought not to lose that.

I don't know if you're ready to move on yet, but next I would split the "natural" (or better yet, if you'll allow me, I'll switch to saying "scientific") into qualitative and quantitative (and I suppose a combination of the two is also possible). If you think that is an improper categorization, let me know. Recall that my end game here is to discuss possible alternative ways of interpreting data.

Click to expand...

Two things: I would like to maintain some distinction between "scientific" and "natural". I would see it as a distinction of knowledge. To me "natural" refers to what is, to what God created, whether we know or understand it or not. "Scientific" refers to what we know or think we know about nature via scientific methodology. Scientific claims of knowledge always have to be tested against the reality of nature. And they are, by definition, always tentative and incomplete. Science, if you like, is our current model of nature rather than nature itself, and the aim of scientific research is to generate more accurate models.

I have no basis objection to the categories of qualitative and quantitative, but would note that science really got its original impetus when the medieval tendency to emphasize the qualitative (the essence of things) ceded to the modern tendency to emphasize the quantitative. Fundamentally, science is about numbers. And that may mean it cannot tell us much about the qualitative aspects of existence. One way I have heard that phrased is that science can measure the wavelength of red light and tell us that most people will identify light within a certain range as "red", but cannot tell us what it is to experience the colour red.

Resha Caner said:

Sure. I haven't yet seen a need to consider miracles a suspension of natural law, but only God's direct intervention. I think you see my point in all this. Given that is the case, unbelievers will always give a natural explanation for anything we might call a miracle.

And unless God tells us about it, even we Christians don't really have a way to distinguish intervention from the natural. So the question becomes: Did God tell us He intervened to specifically create man? I would say yes, but you seem to say no - actually seem uncomfortable with the idea that He might have said He has. I'm not sure why that is, because as I posed the question it wouldn't interfere with your idea of the testimony of creation. But we can move on. Whether He has or hasn't said it, we seem to somewhat agree that He would have to tell us (give us a sign) if we were to know it.

Click to expand...

Again, I am impressed by how close our positions are.
I tend to agree with you that without a testimony to that effect, we really have no way to distinguish miracles from other types of events.
On that basis, I wouldn't say God did not intervene to create humanity, but what I would be uncomfortable about is limiting such intervention to humanity alone. I don't see any reason, either scriptural or scientific, to say that humanity was created in any way differently than other forms of life.

In Genesis 1, after describing the creation of vegetation, animals of sea, air and land, God goes on to announce his intention of creating humans, and then does so. It is clear that humanity is to have a special relationship with the Creator, and special responsibility vis-à-vis other creatures. But does this entail any difference in the mode of creation? Why say this is a miracle and the creation of other animals is not?

Similarly in Genesis 2, after describing the formation of a man from the dust of the earth, then animated by the breath of God, a later section describes the animals similarly being made from the earth. These creatures are then referred to in the flood story as "all flesh in which there was the breath of life".

So, in terms of natural/supernatural I don't see any reason to distinguish the creation of humanity from the creation of any other living being.

Yes. So maybe we can put the qualitative aside more quickly than I had anticipated. By that I mean that I would say the qualitative is almost tautologically subjective. So, I can qualify red as a hot color, but someone else may decide to qualify it as a warm color. The decision is arbitrary. There's no definitive reason to choose one over the other, but those choices could produce different conclusions: For one red is a warning that something will burn you and for another it is a sign of comfort.

Click to expand...

Yes, agreed there. And one can add that such differences can even exist in the same subject on different occasions. I may choose a red winter coat as adding to the level of warm comfort, yet still understand a red fire engine rushing by as a signal of danger. Tastes, smells, many other perceptions have qualitative aspects whose meanings are based on personal experiences and collective arbitrary usage (like red stop lights).

One other note I would add, however, is that there is a Western tendency, especially since the Enlightenment and the rise of science as a powerful mode of knowing, to downplay subjective experience. I think this may be an error in judgment. After all, when it comes to matters of faith, we have no objective measures: only the subjectivity of our personal contact with the divine. Perhaps we need to relearn the importance of exploring our inner self as deeply as we have explored the world around us, and learning to "test the spirits" as John admonishes us.

I think a good example is the case for Gods' "bringing forth life machine."

From "The God is in Control of Everything Myth"

The "God is in Control of Everything" Myth: A Creation of the Possible: C. Alan Martin: 9781492209782: Amazon.com: Books

God’s Possibility Machine Brings Forth Life

Let us detail how God is interacting with His creation. If creation is like a clock that is ticking away through the ages then consider that:

God created a grass machine:

Genesis 1:11
11. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Look at that specific wording:

“Let the earth bring forth…”

God did not directly create grass, the herbs of the field, the fruit trees, or any of the other plant life on the earth. He created the earth as a “possibility plant machine” that would bring forth untold “kinds” of plant life. It is the earth that “brings forth” these living things according to the multitudes of possibilities He infused into it with His living Word. We know that God was indirectly behind the creation of all living things. It is all in accordance with His wisdom and design. He imparted His creative energy and wisdom into the ground itself. The earth now is completely and innately able to generate life of all possible kinds. If all life on earth, down to the very DNA, were to vanish; the earth would immediately begin generating life again because the ground was empowered by God to “bring forth” life. We are not suggesting an elephant will spring up out of the side of a hill. But life will once again spring forth on an microscopic level and begin (under God’s direction) to move toward larger life forms (see our book “The Genesis of Life on Earth&#8221. God may have rested from all His work on the seventh day, but his creation is not resting! We could delve deep into scientific evidence of this fact, for the facts of true science bare out Genesis 1. The Common English Version brings out the truth a bit clearer:

Genesis 1:11
11. God said, "I command the earth to produce all kinds of plants, including fruit trees and grain." And that's what happened.
12. The earth produced all kinds of vegetation. God looked at what he had done, and it was good.

Note: “all kinds”- think all possible kinds.

Other versions support this translation:

(GNB) "Let the earth produce all kinds of plants…”

(Darby) “Let the earth cause grass to spring up…”

The earth was obeying the command of God. He opened up His creation to possibility. He allowed the earth to bring forth “all kinds” of life according to the law of random possibilities. God commanded the seas also. He commanded them to bring forth life:

Genesis 1:20-21
20. And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

God enabled His bring forth machine to bring forth life from water. He put part of His own creative power and wisdom into the machine so that it would create these many and varied creatures. God created these creatures, but it is shown that He did so by His possibility machine. The waters and the earth brought forth the life because they were empowered with the wisdom and energy and the law of possibility.

(RV) Let the waters bring forth…
(BSV) Let the waters bring forth…
(Brent) Let the waters bring forth…
(CAB) Let the waters bring forth…
(DRB) let the waters bring forth…
(MSTC) "Let the water bring forth creatures...
(Webster) Let the waters bring forth…

God did the same thing regarding animals. He commanded and empowered the earth to bring forth animal life:

Genesis 1:24-25
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Various Translations

(ASV) Let the earth bring forth living creatures…
(BBE) Let the earth give birth to all sorts of living things…
(BSV) Let the earth bring forth the living creature…
(Brent) Let the earth bring forth the living creature…
(CEV) "I command the earth to give life…
(CAB) Let the earth bring forth the living creature…
(ERV) "Let the earth produce many kinds of living things…
(GNB) "Let the earth produce all kinds of animal life…
(GW) "Let the earth produce every type of living creature…

In each case God empowered, by His living Word, the earth and the sea to perform the action. We know God did it, but it was through His “bring forth life machine.” Isaiah confirms this concept:

Isaiah 42:5
5. Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

“That which comes out of it (the earth)” is the life from the sea and the land.

May I submit another portion:

The earth is Gods' life generating machine.

The very elements of Gods' creation are empowered by Gods' Word and His words are coming to pass. That Word introduces possibility into the creative process. Possibility means that there is no guarantee as to what will come forth.

Psalms 148:8
8. Fire, and hail; snow, and vapour; stormy wind fulfilling his word:

The Words that God speaks are alive (Hebrews 4:12). They have power inherent within them to bring to pass the contents of those Words.

Isaiah 55:11
11. So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

The Words God spoke actually inhabit and empower the things that He created. The universe that God created is alive with His word. The land is bringing forth life because it is empowered by His Word from creation to do so. The sea is bringing forth life because it was empowered by His Word from creation. He has commanded them and empowered them with His word to accomplish the tasks according to His will.

(CLV) so shall be My word which shall fare forth from My mouth. It shall not return to Me empty, but rather, it does that which I desire, and prospers in that for which I sent it."

(YLT) So is My word that goeth out of My mouth, It turneth not back unto Me empty, But hath done that which I desired, And prosperously effected that for which I sent it.

God’s Words have empowered His creation to not only exist, but to perform the many and varied functions of a living possibility machine.

Colossians 1:17 ISV
17 He himself existed before anything else did, and he holds all things together.

His word is the power and the design that drives the machine.

Hebrews 4:12 ERV
12 God's word is alive and working…

Why Not Directly?

Realize that the universe is a very much like a machine that God created to “bring forth” widgets. If God created the widgets directly, He would have created perfect widgets. There would be no possibility for deformed or broken widgets. But there would be no possibility for widgets that loved, hated, praised, sinned, repented, or had faith. There would be a pile of perfect, robotic widgets. I suppose God would not be amused, satisfied, or pleased with such trivial pursuits and hum-drum results. It would be like playing solitaire. It is fun for a while, but solitaire is the past time of lonely people. It is evident from scripture that God has other purposes and plans for the universe that transcend the mere assembly-line production of cookie cutter units. He desires praise from spiritual beings like Himself. He is pleased by faith that works through love. He takes pleasure in prospering others. Yet a cookie cutter creation has no hope of generating things like original/genuine faith, love, or praise. A widget has no comprehension of what “fellowship” is any more than a computer does. The widget could not experience joy, peace, or free will. The widgets would have to possess sentience, free will, free spirits, and they would have to exist in a world that is not catering to their every need, want, and continued existence. The world these widgets existed in would have to be something other than the comfortable, safe nest of a mother hen. For the perfect Father to hold them in His hand would not create the desired results. They would not have to love since the potential for hate would not exist. They would not have to accept because the possibility of rejection would not exist. They would not have to have faith since the need for faith would be meaningless as they existed eternally in the Omni-benevolent hand of God. These widgets may have the potential (think possibility) for love and faith, but those qualities could not be proven or exercised within the perfect shell of his hand. To have faith one has to exert blind loyalty. To truly love, one has to have the potential to truly hate. One cannot enjoy victory when there is no possibility for defeat. In order to have potential there needs to be possibility.
The introduction of “possibility” into creation is where we depart from the “God is in control of everything” theory. Under the control theory, there is no possibility for anything other than what God is directly and personally manipulating in time and space.

Resher, go to the can now. Get a cup of coffee (or water or whatever). Take a couple deep breaths before jumping into this. I expect some sort of answer, but take your time as needed.

Resha Caner said:

Did you see the recent thread about pet peeves - things you get tired of answering repeatedly? This is one of mine. Science doesn't say what you said. What it says is that we can't know if the cosmos has a center or not. The earth very well could be the center, but we as humans can't know whether it is or not. In scientific terms it is meaningless to talk of a cosmic center, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Whether the Bible actually claims some kind of cosmic center or not is also unknown. Given that we still use idioms like "sunrise", the Bible could simply be using idiom. Or, it could be that the psalmists mistakenly believed the earth was the center, but that in no way makes God a bad scientist. This just isn't a good example of why the Bible is wrong about science ... because it isn't. Anyway, moving on ...

Click to expand...

Wrong on several counts. Still wrong. Repeatedly and intentionally wrong.

Pet Peeve often inaccurately reported by YEC proponent: 'Science' - I presume you mean 'astronomy'? - does NOT claim "...that we can't know if the cosmos has a center or not" as you wrote. Current understanding is the Universe is 'unbounded'; which means it has no 'outside borders' and therefore, there is no center in the sense of the center of a circle, the center of an enclosed space, the center of gravity, and so forth.

Please note difference: NOT "...can't know or find..." but "...ain't there..."

I hate to kick you when down Resher, but this is so typical of YEC proponents: They claim to know all about science, but only know a few idiotic falsehoods told by some older, more experienced YEC proponent with no knowledge of the science under discussion.

Pet Peeve, another: Using references from the Bible, the spiritual, emotional and shallow-thinking forefathers of the modern YEC faction DEMANDED the Earth was immovable in the Cosmos. Not to mention, flat.

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth... See! The Earth is a circle! That's two dimensional and flat. According to the proto-YEC faction, this is Holy Writ and anyone disagreeing is a heretic!

Isaiah 38:8b So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down. [Note: This is a proper translation of the Hebrew text, not just an error on the part of the KJV translators.] See! The Sun moves! It says so in the Bible! If anyone denies this, they are a heretic!

So quit repeating that absolute lie that it is some kind of innocent mistake and it's all understood now and really doesn't have any bearing on our current discussion. Yes, it does.

The proto-YEC faction sanctioned, imprisoned and tortured people who dared to read the Bible and attempt to reconcile some verses with known and discovered science - ALL derived from the laws of physics established by God.

Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for heresy in 1600 as a result of this teaching.

As it happens - and most all (we have a few holdouts here) currently agree on this - the Bible doesn't teach either the Earth being flat, or the Earth being the center of 'everything'. The problem arose due to an incorrect reading of a few verses and incorrect application to the real world.

Any argument with this last paragraph? Or do you wish to maintain Bruno deserved to die as a heretic and so do the rest of us who refuse to believe either asinine claim of flatness or centrality?

There are any number of idiotic errors arising from mis-reading scripture. One of them being "Since God created man in His own image, it follows that blacks and yellows are NOT created in God's image and therefore aren't really humans." Yes, that was a 'Biblical' belief of prior days and it has also been recognized as incorrect. (At the least.)

My late and Honored Father declared that the Standard (Big Bang) Theory of Cosmology was absolutely wrong. Playing it straight, I asked him why.
His reply was to the effect of "They don't mention God at all!"

I played it straight again and asked my Honored Father, "How much is two plus two?"

He looked at me in that way one looks at a two headed calf and said, "Four."

"So why don't you say, 'God says two plus two equals four'?"

He got very quiet, looked away from me and mumbled something about '...maybe have a point...'

So what does all this have to do with the current discussion? Simple.

What is it going to take for YEC proponents to realize they are as wrong as the people who killed Giordano Bruno and imprisoned Galileo Galilei? How long is reality going to have to rub your corporate noses in the truth before you admit, "Uh, maybe I read this wrong..."?

That, Sir, is my last pet peeve: those who confuse willful ignorance with holiness. The God who is sovereign over Christianity is NOT afraid of any truth, fact or law of nature. God has no concern over knowledge, indeed encourages His people to learn everything about the Universe possible.

Archie, as near as I can tell from this thread Resha is not a YEC. Are you sure you're reacting on the right thread? I understand the temptation to respond to a general problem and post on the first thread that seems anywhere close to the topic, just be careful about that.

About what is natural vs. miraculous, in this context perhaps this definition would work: "Miracle, or direct intervention, is any act of God resulting in an event that would almost certainly not happen (when and where it did) if God did not exist." Sure, God is involved in all events in some way, but trying to blur the distinction between miracle and natural is not helpful to our understanding of the discussion.

About didaskalos' theory that God designed the earth to produce life forms randomly, I kind of like it, but could only find it believable if God directly created the first life as part of designing the earth for this function.

Fred Hoyle and others have calculated that the odds against life coming about by chance is astronomical. I believe this means that science favors the belief that God created life miraculously. I think the Cambrian Explosion and the human personality also were directly caused by God tweaking genes miraculously, and that the scientific evidence supports this. Its not something science could ever prove; all science can do is assess the probability of it happening on its own.
Has anyone gotten around to calculating the number of mutations necessary to form a new body plan (or any feature, for that matter, say feathers from scales), and calculating based on the known rates of mutation how many generations it would take to reach 50% probability of its happening?

gluadys said:

Well, first, I think that God does sometimes intervene in the creation beyond the natural.

Click to expand...

Only through the Spirit of outside of our "time" altogether.

Jesus changed water into wine (John 2:1-11). Jesus cured the nobleman's son (John 4:46-47). The great haul of fishes (Luke 5:1-11). Jesus cast out an unclean spirit (Mark 1:23-28). Jesus cured Peter's mother-in-law of a fever (Mark 1:30-31). Jesus healed a leper (Mark 1:40-45). Jesus healed the centurion's servant (Matthew 8:5-13). Jesus raised the widow's son from the dead (Luke 7:11-18). Jesus stilled the storm (Matthew 8:23-27). Jesus cured two demoniacs (Matthew 8:28-34). Jesus cured the paralytic (Matthew 9:1-8). Jesus raised the ruler's daughter from the dead (Matthew 9:18-26). Jesus cured a woman of an issue of blood (Luke 8:43-48). Jesus opened the eyes of two blind men (Matthew 9:27-31). Jesus loosened the tongue of a man who could not speak (Matthew 9:32-33). Jesus healed an invalid man at the pool called Bethesda (John 5:1-9). Jesus restored a withered hand (Matthew 12:10-13). Jesus cured a demon-possessed man (Matthew 12:22). Jesus fed at least five thousand people (Matthew 14:15-21). Jesus healed a woman of Canaan (Matthew 15:22-28). Jesus cured a deaf and mute man (Mark 7:31-37). Jesus fed at least four thousand people (Matthew 15:32-39). Jesus opened the eyes of a blind man (Mark 8:22-26). Jesus cured a boy who was plagued by a demon (Matthew 17:14-21). Jesus opened the eyes of a man born blind (John 9:1-38) Jesus cured a woman who had been afflicted eighteen years (Luke 13:10-17). Jesus cured a man of dropsy (Luke 14:1-4). Jesus cleansed ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19). Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:1-46). Jesus opened the eyes of two blind men (Matthew 20:30-34). Jesus caused the fig tree to wither (Matthew 21:18-22). Jesus restored the ear of the high priest's servant (Luke 22:50-51). Jesus rose from the dead (Luke 24:5-6). The second great haul of fishes (John 21:1-14).

Didaskalos said:

The earth is Gods' life generating machine.

Click to expand...

Doesn't read that way:

18 "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.
19 "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world,
but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.

4 You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?
Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

SkyWriting said:

Doesn't read that way:

18 "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.
19 "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world,
but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.

4 You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?
Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the response SW... but I am not sure what it has to do with my post!

Resha Caner said:

So, where do you stand on whether God directly acted in creation beyond these "natural" processes?

Click to expand...

Simply have faith in the Word of God.
If you think science has demonstrated the account of creation presented in Genesis as inaccurate...reduced to a myth...then you should have a problem with the resurrection of Christ Jesus. After all, modern science has also demonstrated that once dead...you don't resurrect on day 3.

-57 said:

Simply have faith in the Word of God.
If you think science has demonstrated the account of creation presented in Genesis as inaccurate...reduced to a myth...then you should have a problem with the resurrection of Christ Jesus. After all, modern science has also demonstrated that once dead...you don't resurrect on day 3.

Click to expand...

That is not true. You are confusing science with naturalistic presuppositions. Science can tell what did happen if there is evidence to work with, but it otherwise it can't tell us what can happen without making theological assumptions. The fossil record presents definite evidence that the earth is old, and that the layers were not laid down all at the same time in a global flood, but gradually, in many local floods. (if everything had been laid down in one flood the ratio of sea to land animal fossils would be closer to even, but in fact there are many more sea and shore fossils than land fossils). There is no body in Jesus' tomb, so science can't say anything about whether he rose from the dead.