God and "natural"

[shernren]

Most basic scientific facts are highly counterintuitive to most people, as the above post shows. The mathematical shape of the Moon's orbit is actually accounted for by gravity, all protestations about cause and effect to the contrary.

Can you put the moon into orbit?

 

[lucaspa]

Lucaspa, would you call yourself an occasionalist?

Occasionalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Going back and looking at this again, I realized I needed to emphasize that the opening post is not my position, but rather the consensus position of Christianity. I am simply re-stating the Christian position. So, asking me what I personally call myself is irrelevant.

The question must be whether the Christian position is occasionalism. Looking at the page describing Occasionalism, I would say "No". "Also, occasionalists generally hold that the physical cannot cause the physical either, for no necessary connection can be perceived between physical causes and effects."

That is not the position either in scripture nor in Christian thought. A physical law, according to Gravesande, does cause the effect. Gravity does cause the apple to fall to the ground. It's just that gavity requires the will of God to work. God so wills it each and every time. The Christian position is a step back from "direct cause".

So Wikipedia is in error (shock!) when it says right after the quote above: "The will of God is taken to be necessary." The will is not necessary as the "efficient cause" -- see the first sentence of the article.

I would note that the people mentioned in the article who champion Occasionalism -- Hume and Berkely -- were both atheists.

 

[lucaspa]

Oh, I understand that, but it is exactly the distinction I am making. Evolution, whether one claims it is theistic or atheisitic, as an understanding of how you and I came to be living upon the earth today, is false.

Actually, it is creationism that is false. Yes, our physical bodies are the result of evolution. Christians believe that is how God created us.

You posted: It's just that God is not required to perform miracles to connect members of the physical universe.

No, to be honest, I'm missing your point in that.

You think God was required to perform a miracle to create the first cell, right? You state that below:

"You further wrote: God did not need to perform a miracle to put together the first cell or the first DNA molecule. Sustaining chemistry was sufficient for both to happen.

Really? Have you, or any scientist, been able to copy what God has done? When you can create a living creature from absolutely nothing, I'll reduce my understanding of what God has done to: Not a miracle. You have to be able to do it from nothing. "

See? you are invoking miracle. I'm saying that God didn't need to perform miracle. Chemistry is sufficient (as material cause) to get a living cell from non-living chemicals. God is not required to have, as material cause, direct manufacture (miracle).

And yes, scientists (and I) have gotten living cells from non-living chemicals. You are moving the goalposts when you say "nothing'. I presume you are doing that because you know, at some level, that life arises by chemistry from non-living chemicals. I have a thread on that here at Christian Forums:
http://www.christianforums.com/t155621 We can start a new thread here to discuss getting living cells from non-living chemicals. It's not from "nothing", but from amino acids that arise, by chemistry, from simpler chemicals (such as carbon dioxide, ammonia, and water) that derive by chemistry from elements that derive by physics (nucleosynthesis in stars) from hydrogen, which in turn derives from the phase change from energy to matter.

Please stop trying to use god-of-the-gaps theology. That too is not Christian doctrine.

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

You didn't cite the chapter and verse. Not very Christian of you. It's Colosians 2:8

I submit that you are misinterpreting that verse. If we go back to Chapter 1, we find in verse 16 "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. "

Since Christ created all things, Colosians 2:8 cannot be referring to science, can it? Because science studies what God created.

What Paul is referring to (as he does all thru his letters) is the current Greek philosophy and logic. That philosophy relied upon logical reasoning from "first principles", as they put it. The problem Paul faced is that you cannot get to Christ by reasoning from a first principle of God. There is no way to go from God the Creator to God becoming flesh. There is no logical reason or requirement for God to do this.

What Paul is relying upon is science. That is, Paul is relying upon the data, the observation of Jesus' resurrection. Paul is saying we throw out contemporary Greek logic and philosophy because we have the data from God that is the resurrection.

I said you and I have some very fundamental disagreements. This is one of them. You separate science from God. In fact, you separate God from His Creation. In effect, you deny God as Creator because you deny any connection between His Creation and how He created.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted[/quote]

 

[lucaspa]

There is a difference between natural and naturalistic.

That is part of what I am pointing out in the OP. Many Christians equate the 2. They too think that natural = without God.

Naturalism does indeed exclude God as cause,and methodological naturalism is a principle of science. It is intended to explain all things in nature as if only natural causation exists. This leads scientists to attribute abilities to natural things that are illogical,when they explain the origins and causes of life,species,order,matter. It is misguided to put a theistic spin on a naturalistic theory that does not allow for God to be doing anything.

And here is that misunderstanding again that I was trying to correct. Just because there are natural causes does not mean God is not allowed. You are having God only allowed if "miracle" happens. Anthony, I'm trying to show that having natural causation does not exclude God.

There is a naturalism -- called "Philosophical naturalism" -- that is a belief that natural causes work on their own. This is separate from methodological naturalism. I understand your confusion. People from both extreme ends of belief spectrum try to confuse this and equate methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. The motivation for atheists is easy to see: they want to take natural component of causes that science finds and make them the only component, thus affirming their belief that natural causes are the only causes. Creationists do it because they want to scare people and get them to reject parts of science, particularly evolution.

However, methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism are separate. Scientists are methodological naturalists because these are the only causes we can test for. Science cannot test the Christian belief that God sustains natural causes. Why not? Because science tests for causes by having an experiment where we know the cause is present and having a "control" where we know the cause is absent. For instance, if we want to know whether hydrogen is a cause of the formation of water, we have a chamber that has oxygen and a spark, but no hydrogen (control) versus a chamger that has hydrogen, oxygen, and a spark. Only in the second will water form.

But does God sustain that reaction? Science can't test that. We can't have a chamber where we know God is present and a chamber where we know God is absent. Will hydrogen and oxygen burn to form water by themselves without God willing it to happen? We as scientists don't know.

Will apples fall from trees without God sustaining gravity? We don't know because we have never seen an apple fall where we know God is absent. Science itself is agnostic.

Philosophical naturalists believe that what is "natural" happens on their own. They believe hydrogen and oxygen combine one their own to form water. They believe gravity works all on its own. They believe that all the processes involved in evolution work on their own.

Now, the rest of your post is about the acceptance and validity of individual theories. As such, it is not really about origins theology, which is what the Opening Post is about. Therefore, I am going to take the rest of the post and make a new thread out of it rather than derail this one.

And it does not make sense to believe that God works through evolution to creates species because we know that living creatures come into being immediately as individuals. That is how God creates living creatures. Species exist as individual creatures,which have specific beginnings. Theistic evolution attributes to God the creation of all species but it does not acknowledge any specific points of creation. But if there are no points of creation,then God does not create anything at all.

The immediate creation of a species is not,properly speaking,a miracle,because it is not contrary to the laws or normal ways of nature. If your idea of a miracle is simply an event or effect caused by divine intervention,then that would include God sustaining evolution.

There are theological and logica problems here, too. I will address the theological ones and the specific scientific ones also in the new thread.

To say that "if there are no points of creation, then God does not create anything at all" is a non-sequitor. What's more, it is denied by scripture. The Hebrews knew God as Creator of Israel long before they thought of Him as Creator of the universe. He created Israel out of "nothing". In this case the "nothing" was a population of slaves in Egypt. Now, during the course of Exodus and Conquest, can you point to an exact time that Israel was created? Was it when Moses received his instructions on Mt Sinai? The first plague? When the Hebrews started their trek out of Egypt? The Parting of Red Sea and the drowning of Pharoah's army that was going to take them back to Egypt? The delivery of the Ten Commandments? When God burned the opponents of Moses alive in the tent? When the Hebrews crossed the river into Canaan? The conquest of Jericho? The conquest of the last Cannaanite city? The establishment of the monarchy and a "state" of Israel? Where, along that continuum, did God create Israel?

Yet don't you agree that God did create Israel?

Species are populations. Yes, the population is composed of individuals, but that does not make the individual equal to the population. Populations change thru time. Individuals are born with characteristics that do not change during their lifetime. We do not change our alleles during our lifetime. BUT, over generations, populations do change the alleles that are present in the population. Some alleles disappear and some alleles appear and become present in every individual. So, after many generation, the population is no longer the same. It is a different population -- a different species.

You have another logica and theological problem. If new species do not arise from gradual change over generations from existing species: where do they come from? If you say that God cannot create unless there is a specific point in time for that creation, then the logical deduction from that is that God must make, at a specific point in time, the first individuals of a new species. That makes it a miracle, which then contradicts your claim that "The immediate creation of a species is not,properly speaking,a miracle" It must happen by a miracle, according to you, because, according ot you, it must be "contrary to the laws or normal ways of nature" because there are no "laws of nature" that can change a species!

 

[lucaspa]

The content on this piece of Christian theology is based on science.

No, it' s not. It all predates modern science. C'mon, are you seriously going to tell me that the scipture verses I quoted are "based on science"?

Christianity had the views that 1) God sustains the universe and 2) God created a complete universe long before science.

You can not make up something and mixed it with other theological contents and claim it as a new understanding in theology.

Juvenissun, look carefully. I'm claiming it is an old understanding in theology. Dating all the way back to 1500 BC or older (depending on when you think the OT texts were written).

In this case, you suggested that God sustains the process of evolution. What if the idea of evolution is not true?

This gets to the validity of evolution, not the Christian theology about the relationship of God and natural. The idea that God sustains the universe and "natural" predates evolution. ALL the quotes I gave from scripture and Christian theologians are before Origin of Species. Evolution simply fits into that pre-existing Christian viewpoint as just another "natural" process that God sustains. The Answers in Genesis website I gave does the same thing for the strong nuclear force. It simply makes the strong nuclear force one of those natural processes God sustains.

So, the question I have for you is: why is evolution theologically different? Why would evolution not qualify -- if true -- as just another natural process that God sustains?

 

[lucaspa]

And here I was thinking that Lucaspa had thoroughly built up a Christian theological view of naturalism and was applying that view to the question of whether we can accept evolution. So glad that you can clear it up and demonstrate that the body of his argument rests on his conclusion and not the other way round.


BTW that was a good in depth post Lucaspa thank you for it.

You're welcome. Reputation points are always welcome.

Juvenissun was demonstrating psychological projection. Creationists do that a lot. They take from their own position what makes them uncomfortable and project it onto anyone who disagrees with that position. One of major conclusions of creationism is that evolution cannot possibly accomodate God; that evolution must exclude God. Starting from that conclusion, they make up lots of arguments to justify it.

It appears that Juvenissun never noticed that all the quotes I used to demonstrate Christian thinking about the relationship of God and natural are before evolution. Most (all those from scripture) are before modern science.

I submit that creationism and Fundamentalism has discarded this part of Christian theology. The long standing theological view of God sustaining natural and that natural is just as much God as miracle has been thrown out within the last 100 years by Fundamentalism.

 

[lucaspa]

I'll reduce my understanding of what God has done to: Not a miracle.

This is the point I am trying to get to Ted: why is that a reduction?

Why is God any less God and why are His actions any less when He sustains a natural process to do something than if He performs a miracle? Why is "natural" any less God (reduced) than a miracle?

This is one of the ways that Fundamentalism/creationism has gone astray. It is saying "if God did not perform a miracle, then it is not God acting."

Don't you see that this is atheism? Atheism is based upon a "natural" explanation means no God. Atheists claim, all the time, that when they have a "natural" explanation that such explanation excludes God. And you agree!

All of Christian theology says you should disagree. You should say "a natural explanation does not exclude God; what is natural just as much requires God as a miracle does." This is what Butler said in more formal and stilted language:
"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

Look what I bolded and put it together: what is natural as much requires an intelligent agent as what is miraculous does.

You give all that away when you say "I'll reduce my understanding of what God has done to: Not a miracle."

WHY? Why do you have so little faith in God that you can't see Him unless He is doing a miracle?

 

[miamited]

Actually, it is creationism that is false. Yes, our physical bodies are the result of evolution. Christians believe that is how God created us.

Well, that's certainly a widely agreed premise.


You think God was required to perform a miracle to create the first cell, right? You state that below:

"You further wrote: God did not need to perform a miracle to put together the first cell or the first DNA molecule. Sustaining chemistry was sufficient for both to happen.

Really? Have you, or any scientist, been able to copy what God has done? When you can create a living creature from absolutely nothing, I'll reduce my understanding of what God has done to: Not a miracle. You have to be able to do it from nothing. "

See? you are invoking miracle. I'm saying that God didn't need to perform miracle. Chemistry is sufficient (as material cause) to get a living cell from non-living chemicals. God is not required to have, as material cause, direct manufacture (miracle).

And yes, scientists (and I) have gotten living cells from non-living chemicals. You are moving the goalposts when you say "nothing'. I presume you are doing that because you know, at some level, that life arises by chemistry from non-living chemicals. I have a thread on that here at Christian Forums:
http://www.christianforums.com/t155621 We can start a new thread here to discuss getting living cells from non-living chemicals. It's not from "nothing", but from amino acids that arise, by chemistry, from simpler chemicals (such as carbon dioxide, ammonia, and water) that derive by chemistry from elements that derive by physics (nucleosynthesis in stars) from hydrogen, which in turn derives from the phase change from energy to matter.

Please stop trying to use god-of-the-gaps theology. That too is not Christian doctrine.

Well, actually the first part of your quote is not my words but yours that I was responding to. What I said was when you can create a living creature from nothing, that I would reassess my position.


You didn't cite the chapter and verse. Not very Christian of you. It's Colosians 2:8
Yes, and here again you make assumptions from 'facts' not in evidence. I don't claim to be a christian. Yes, if the form has a block that says 'christian', such as on these forums, and doesn't leave a suitable option I will check 'christian'. What I claim, as far as my spiritual identity, is that I am a born again believer. I have, as Jesus explained to Nicodemus, been born of the Spirit. It has always been my contention that the term 'christian' is widely misapplied in this day and age to generally cover everyone who self-proclaims to be such. One cannot be falsely 'born again', although someone may be deluded into thinking that they are. The reality is, though, that to be born again one must have received the Holy Spirit whose job in our lives is to guide us into all truth and comfort and sustain us and convict us. To label oneself a christian is, on the other hand, pretty much accepted of anyone who attends a worship service or even many who don't.

I'm presently reading 'The Gospel According To Jesus', by John MacArthur. He tells of driving along with another pastor and passing a liquor store and the other pastor telling him that one of his parishoners owns the whole chain of stores. John questions how he resolves that 'job' with a christian worldview. The pastor says, "Well, he says if he doesn't do it someone else will." John asks what the man's life is like and the pastor replies, "He attends my bible study and he just divorced his wife and is seeing some very young woman. He's very active in our church."

This account comes up as John tries to explain that we have fallen under the deception of 'easy believism'. The Scriptures warn us that as we move closer to the end there will be a great apostasy among the church. We live in a culture, especially here in the US, where we are expected to accept the verbal claims of people without expecting any outward sign that such claims are true. And when we try to investigate these things, we are then labeled judgmental and 'holier than thou'. I'm in agreement with John on this issue.

I also believe Jesus' words that not everyone who says to him, "Lord, Lord..." will be saved. The life of a true believer is modeled for us by the men of the new covenant Scriptures. Men who taught against worldly values and worldy ways and lived lives walking in a different direction than the way of the millions in the world and even many who claim to be a part of us. Peter warned us of those who would be a part of us but were not of us. Paul gives a clear example of how we should handle someone who claims to be among us but is not walking in the way. All of the writers tell us that it only get's worse and worse and much more prevelant as we move closer to God's day of judgment.

So, logically speaking, if I believe that we are very near the end, say a hundred years of so, then I should full expect, if I believe the prophecies of the Scriptures are true, that we will be seeing this great apostasy building. The apostasy is not going to be something that just happens overnight. One day you go to sleep and the fellowship of the church is strong and faithful, and then the next day everything is broken down. No, not at all, the apostasy of the fellowship of the church will begin subtly. Here a false doctrine and there a false doctrine. We will begin to accept into our fellowships those who have no knowledge or willingness to walk as Jesus walked, but are comfortable with giving up a couple of hours a week to 'go to church'.

I submit that you are misinterpreting that verse. If we go back to Chapter 1, we find in verse 16 "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. "

Since Christ created all things, Colosians 2:8 cannot be referring to science, can it? Because science studies what God created.

I'll have to let you pray over that decision, and if you are born again, trust that the Holy Spirit will give you the truth.

What Paul is referring to (as he does all thru his letters) is the current Greek philosophy and logic. That philosophy relied upon logical reasoning from "first principles", as they put it. The problem Paul faced is that you cannot get to Christ by reasoning from a first principle of God. There is no way to go from God the Creator to God becoming flesh. There is no logical reason or requirement for God to do this.

What Paul is relying upon is science. That is, Paul is relying upon the data, the observation of Jesus' resurrection. Paul is saying we throw out contemporary Greek logic and philosophy because we have the data from God that is the resurrection.

I said you and I have some very fundamental disagreements. This is one of them. You separate science from God. In fact, you separate God from His Creation. In effect, you deny God as Creator because you deny any connection between His Creation and how He created.

How you come to those conclusions regarding what I know of my Father is quite baffling to me, but it's surely obvious that I'm not nearly as wise as you.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[rcorlew]

lucspa, I have come to the conclusion that everything is constantly dependent on God to sustain. This position is based purely on science oddly enough as I was a "God of the gaps" type of person before. I will explain briefly, but can give a full write up if needed, but given your background you should follow my overview.

The laws of physics rely on a universal constant in order for the mathematics to be valid, all other sciences (physical or biological) rely on an initial backbone of physics at some level. Physicists had always believed the universal constant to be the speed of light, which interestingly enough, has been found to not be constant at all. In fact, the speed of light has slowed almost 145,000 fps in the 13 or so billion years the universe has been around. It rightfully seems that there is nothing short of God himself who is not entropic in all of creation.

 

[KJV1611Warrior]

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

 

[Keachian]

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

So how does this contradict the definition of natural that lucaspa has given in this thread? I'd agree with both the verses you have posted and lucaspa's definition.

 

[KJV1611Warrior]

My point is that with verses as clear as the one I provided, all of the "scholarly" long winded intellectual banter is ridiculous. I love the specificity of God's word. Why apologize for it, eh?

 

[Keachian]

My point is that with verses as clear as the one I provided, all of the "scholarly" long winded intellectual banter is ridiculous. I love the specificity of God's word. Why apologize for it, eh?

So do you agree that God is behind all things?

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

That is part of what I am pointing out in the OP. Many Christians equate the 2. They too think that natural = without God.

But that is how the word "natural" is used,when natural events are scientifically explained or when they are explained by people who do not believe that God's power is involved. Christians who don't believe in evolution theory use the word natural in the original sense of that which is proper to the natural world,and they may also use it in the sense of "caused by natural factors alone",because although God is the cause of all natural causes,this does not mean he directly causes everything that happens. But they can sometimes see when a "natural" explanation is an explanation that excludes God's involvement.

In the case of scientific evolution theory,"natural" does exclude God,because the theory is naturalistic on a subject in which God is directly the cause - the origin of species. By its explanation of the origins of species,it does not allow for God to be creating species,because it attributes what God has accomplished to natural things and processes. And in doing this,it attributes capabilities to natural things and processes that they cannot logically have.

Anthony:

Naturalism does indeed exclude God as cause,and methodological naturalism is a principle of science. It is intended to explain all things in nature as if only natural causation exists. This leads scientists to attribute abilities to natural things that are illogical,when they explain the origins and causes of life,species,order,matter. It is misguided to put a theistic spin on a naturalistic theory that does not allow for God to be doing anything.​

Lucaspa:

And here is that misunderstanding again that I was trying to correct. Just because there are natural causes does not mean God is not allowed. You are having God only allowed if "miracle" happens. Anthony, I'm trying to show that having natural causation does not exclude God.

I never said that because there are natural causes that God is not allowed.
I was talking about methodological naturalism,which leads to false attributions in regard to what causes life,species,order,and matter to exist.

There is a naturalism -- called "Philosophical naturalism" -- that is a belief that natural causes work on their own. This is separate from methodological naturalism. I understand your confusion. People from both extreme ends of belief spectrum try to confuse this and equate methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. The motivation for atheists is easy to see: they want to take natural component of causes that science finds and make them the only component, thus affirming their belief that natural causes are the only causes. Creationists do it because they want to scare people and get them to reject parts of science, particularly evolution.

However, methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism are separate. Scientists are methodological naturalists because these are the only causes we can test for. Science cannot test the Christian belief that God sustains natural causes. Why not? Because science tests for causes by having an experiment where we know the cause is present and having a "control" where we know the cause is absent. For instance, if we want to know whether hydrogen is a cause of the formation of water, we have a chamber that has oxygen and a spark, but no hydrogen (control) versus a chamger that has hydrogen, oxygen, and a spark. Only in the second will water form.

I have been told that argument many times before. It is not convincing.
Naturalism is a false view as such,and it does not become justifiable for the purposes of science. And the mere belief that only nature exists is not itself philosophical. It is just a simple view,as it is in the context of science. It does not require any philosophical thinking to have that view. An opinion about the world which is not scientific is not necessarily philosophical. In regard to scientific explanations,it makes no difference if the naturalistic view is really believed by scientists or only a professional obligation due to their inability to test the supernatural. The explanations are naturalistic in either case. The real reason why the natural sciences became naturalistic was not because of the inability to test the supernatural,but because philosophers and scientists from the early 1600's,such as Francis Bacon,disbelieved that God worked in nature by his own power,and they rejected the Catholic,"Scholastic" view of God and nature.

That the supernatural cannot be tested does not justify excluding it from consideration in scientific work. The results of experimentation would not be affected if the supernatural were considered. What would be affected,in some cases,are the explanations of natural phenomena. Scientific explanations need to be logical,not intentionally naturalistic. Science considers causes and effects in nature,and this demands a logical assessment of power in nature. Causation is about power. Scholastic philosophy and the Catholic doctrine of creation and divine providence also deal with causation in nature,both supernatural and natural. This is where methodological naturalism leads to explanations that are illogical and are incompatible with the Catholic doctrine of creation and divine providence.
Depending on the subject of scientific study,reason may demand acknowledgment of only natural factors (as with gravity),or it may demand acknowledgment of supernatural power working upon natural elements (as with the coming into being of life and species). God does not work in nature with uniform power. With some natural realities it is reasonable to believe that God directly makes them happen,while with others it is reasonable to believe that they happen more by the capabilities of natural things. That is why scientific explanations for the activity of particles or chemical substances do not provoke Christians to object,but many do object to scientific explanations for the origins of life and species.

 

[miamited]

So do you agree that God is behind all things?

No, I do not believe that God is behind the murder of children in the Sudan. I don't believe that God is behind the destruction of the world trade centers. There is actually quite a lot that goes on day to day in this world that I'm not about to hold God responsible for.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted