If man evolved, where does God fit into the equation?

[Papias]

Er72 wrote:

And thanks for the welcome, Papias.

You’re welcome!

I must say, your beliefs sound much more like deism to me than typical Christianity (especially given what you said about God not intervening in our world and such).

D’Oh!! Pardon my frustration.

That means that you completely misunderstood my post (#5). Mallon, thanks for attempting to straighten this out. Let me try again.

OK, I described the “jumping in” view of God, where God makes his creation (like a machine), and then steps back and watches it, and “jumps in” now and then to tweak it. This is the view that many Christians seem to have of God. It seems to be the view of God you have. It is also expressed in NSP’s post #21, which you agreed with. It is NOT the view I hold.


So to review, this “jumping in” view has two parts:

Part 1: God is watching the universe, which he created as a independently running machine.

Then, Part 2 – God doesn’t like something in the universe, and so he “jumps in” it perform a miracle or such.


In post #5, I explained that I disagree with this view. Probably because you see the world in that way, you mistakenly thought I objected to Part 2. If that were true – that I accepted part 1 and not part 2, then I would indeed be a deist.

However, that’s not the case. Instead, please try to see that I objected to PART 1.

I objected to part 1, because I don’t see God as just watching the universe. I see God as deeply involved with every aspect of the universe. God is not just “watching” the natural laws – God is instead upholding and maintaining the natural laws, all the time. This is described in the book of Hebrews and elsewhere, as Mallon pointed out. It can be thought of as the view that sees the normal functioning of the natural laws as a miracle of God.

So, in my view, God is involved ALL THE TIME.

Now compare the two views. View “A”, the view you are used to, of the “jumping in” God, has a God who set up the natural laws, and almost all the time, watches the universe like a machine.

My view, we’ll call it view “B”, has God constantly involved in the world, with billions of acts of God occurring every second.

By misunderstanding my view (thinking that I objected to part 2, when I actually objected to part 1), you said I sound like a deist.


Now compare view A (yours) and view B (mine). Do you see why it seems to me that your view, view A, is much closer to deism than mine?

It may help at this point to go back and read my post #5 again, and perhaps understand it as I meant it.


Thanks!

**********************
Another way to see this is as follows:


If you subscribe to view A (what you call "typical Christianity"), then every discovery of science makes God more distant. In that view, God because a shrinking god, who as you point out, disappears. Obstetrics removes God from making babies, Gravity removes God from directing the planets, evolution removes God from the creation, pharmacology and brain science remove our souls from our minds, geology removes God from making the earth, Astronomy removes God from making the heavens, etc. They see “faith” as an effort of sheer will, where they need to keep pretending to believe what they know isn’t true, which becomes ever more difficult as science reveals the details of every aspect of our lives. Faith becomes a losing, and embittering, battle. So of course those with view A can either deny the real world, denying all these sciences, and implicitly endorsing ignorance and fear, or the person with view A can become an atheist. It’s obvious why those with view A can get so bitter, venomous, and fearful. I probably would too, if I felt my very world were threatened. I understand their feelings.


However, for those of us with view B, every discovery of science further show the hand of God, the glory of God. That’s why we don’t flee from science, be that astronomy, pharmacology, genetics or evolution. By showing us more of the acts of God that God is doing all the time (indeed, which allow my brain to think to type this!), God becomes more great every day. Faith in God becomes not only easier, but unavoidable. Which science at every turn showing God to be more and more glorious, having faith in God becomes as unstoppable as breathing.


If that is starting to make some sense (I’m again not asking you to shift to view B, but only to understand how someone – myself and millions of other Chrisitans – feels when holding it.), then perhaps read post #5 again, and see it that works better now.

Er72, does that help?


Papias

 

[er72]

Papias - I was not saying you ARE a deist, simply that the case you presented SOUNDED deistic in nature. That is all.

Now, as for evolution, for me it's really a non-issue. I don't believe in it or accept it, anymore than I accept a flat earth, the existence of the god Thor, or that aliens built the pyramids. Now, just because some people do believe in those things does not have any influence on me as a person or my beliefs. People are free to choose whatever they wish to believe.

For me, to say that humans are related to monkeys / apes / primates / other animals cheapens man's existence (never mind the moral problems). If we're nothing but a glorified monkey, then how do we have a soul? Did we evolve one? How can we evolve a soul or a spirit? Maybe we don't even have one (if we accept this theory as true).

If man is nothing but a monkey (I know it's not technically accurate, but humor me), then should man be forbidden from intermarrying with other animals? After all, he is nothing but an animal, right? Why or why not? And don't write this question off as "absurd" because it DOES have legitimate implications.

Second, why does God have to be involved in the process? Who says? It certainly isn't in the Bible! No. The Bible says God created man in His image, not in the image and likeness of Koko the Monkey. But to each his own, yes?

Now, you must understand that while SOME Christians may believe in evolution, ALL atheists believe in evolution. And while atheists are not generally stupid people, that doesn't mean they are right about the origin of life either. How finite man can claim to know how God created all things in his own wisdom is beyond me. (I.e. It's ridiculous!) Furthermore, we both know there is no place for God within the evolutionary framework. Charles Darwin was a Christian and turned away from God when his daughter died at a young age. This set him on his path, whether you choose to acknowledge that or not. Why someone would choose Darwin as their prophet over the plain text of the Bible is a mystery to me.

Anyhow, we can try to synergize God and religion or faith and say that somehow He was magically behind it all, but we have zero evidence for that. How do we even know it would be the Christian God? Why not Allah, or Zeus, or Odin or Shiva? Why are we certain that's the Christian God? Just asking; I think it's a fair question.

The deist explanation probably makes the most sense, if someone were to accept the theory of evolution as indisputable fact and ultimate truth. Now of course, I don't do that, but if I did, then deism is probably the best explanation. Why attempt to somehow credit God for things which He may or may not have even been involved with? For all we know, perhaps the Big Bang arose out of God sneezing or something. Hey, there's a theory.

Ultimately, I believe it cheapens the meaning of being made as a divine-like being to say that man is nothing more than an advanced ape. How does saying this universe was made by completely natural means (or at least, human life as having evolved) bring ANY glory to God? I can't see how it does. If evolution proved or even pointed to the existence of any god at all, let alone the God of Christians', then no one would be an atheist! All would "have to" believe on the overwhelming evidence for God's existence, as based off of Darwinism. But... ironically, they don't. Now why is that?

As for those who said I "fear" evolution. Guess again. I fear it as I fear the wrath of the god Thor, aliens coming down and abducting me while I sleep, and as much as I fear the Toothfairy or the Cookie Monster. There is no fear. I don't fear something that never happened in my eyes and that is not real. Do you?

 

[Mallon]

The Bible says God made us from dirt, er72. Why don't you find that degrading, yet take offence when science tells us that God made us from pre-existing apes?

 

[er72]

The Bible says God made us from dirt, er72. Why don't you find that degrading, yet take offence when science tells us that God made us from pre-existing apes?

I've asked the same question to hardcore Bible literalists myself: What's better, being a pile of dirt or a monkey? Which would you rather be?

My answer: Neither.

The problem is, science DOESN'T tell us God made us from pre-existing ANYTHING. Science does not have a concept called "God" - unless you posit that God = the Big Bang. Because within the framework of science, there is no god. Science has formulated an amazingly simple (although confusing) theory called evolution, which is clear that in order for this world and us to exist, no god, divinity, deities or creator is necessary.

Hence why most hardcore evolutionists are atheists, NOT Christians. Trying to mix the two is like mixing coffee and mud.

 

[Mallon]

I've asked the same question to hardcore Bible literalists myself: What's better, being a pile of dirt or a monkey? Which would you rather be?

My answer: Neither.

The problem is, science DOESN'T tell us God made us from pre-existing ANYTHING. Science does not have a concept called "God" - unless you posit that God = the Big Bang. Because within the framework of science, there is no god. Science has formulated an amazingly simple (although confusing) theory called evolution, which is clear that in order for this world and us to exist, no god, divinity, deities or creator is necessary.

Actually, science makes no comment about the existence of God either way. It doesn't say that God exists, and it doesn't say that God doesn't exist. Science is agnostic. What science does is provide natural, mechanistic explanations for natural phenomena. I suspect the reason why you think science excludes God is because you obviously have an effectively deistic understanding of God whereby God is a magician who works only through miracles -- and because science does not appeal to miracles in positing natural explanations, you think science excludes God. This is not a reflection on science -- it's a reflection on your post-Enlightenment, non-biblical, deistic understanding of God. By contrast, evolutionary creationists like myself believe that God is constantly sustaining the natural processes of the universe and that nothing would exist apart from His will (Heb 1:3). Therefore, science simply explains HOW God works in the world and in no way diminishes Him as you seem to think.

 

[er72]

Actually, science makes no comment about the existence of God either way. It doesn't say that God exists, and it doesn't say that God doesn't exist. Science is agnostic. What science does is provide natural, mechanistic explanations for natural phenomena. I suspect the reason why you think science excludes God is because you obviously have a functionally deistic understanding of God whereby God is a magician who works only through miracles -- and because science does not appeal to miracles in positing natural explanations, you think science excludes God. This is not a reflection on science -- it's a reflection on your post-Enlightenment, non-biblical, deistic understanding of God. By contrast, evolutionary creationists like myself believe that God is constantly sustaining the natural processes of the universe and that nothing would exist apart from His will (Heb 1:3). Therefore, science simply explains HOW God works in the world and in no way diminishes Him as you seem to think.

No, it's because of men like Dawkins and Hawking - brilliant men, who make a strong point for evolution without a god.

There is nothing in the theory that even mentions a deity. You are inserting Him into it.

I spent four years of my life studying this theory from a psychological point of view, and not once did any of my professors say, "Well you know, even though we're not mentioning this to you... there could be a god behind all these random processes." No. No one said anything of the sort to me.

They simply used the word evolution as a substitute for God - "Well, evolution designed us this way. Evolution dictated this," etc. It was as though evolution was its own consciousness. Maybe it is, who knows?

The problem is that evolution and Christian dogma / doctrine do not coincide. You are attempting to MAKE them, like forcing a square peg into a round hole. It simply does not work.

"Evolutionary creationist" is an oxymoron. What's next, being a Christian atheist or a Jewish Muslim? Those are mutually exclusive terms. Either God created humans or He did not. If life evolved via natural processes, so be it. But in no way does God get credit for that, since it simply happened. It is nothing but conjecture to say that God was somehow behind the scenes (?) directing it. How does one "direct" the natural processes of science and evolution? It would have happened as it did, without Him anyway (so the theory says).

Why quote the Bible? We're going to accept Hebrews literally but NOT Genesis? That does not follow. I can understand taking some of the writings and prophets as metaphors, for they were. But nowhere is it said Genesis is a false account or a fable. Paul alluded to Adam as a real person. Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24 to the religious zealots of His day.

I've even heard of Job as a parable, and that I can somehow accept. So don't think I am a literalist in every sense, I'm not. But I do not accept man as a glorified ape who randomly evolved as some mere natural process. (You'll say you don't either - but in a sense, you do. You accept the theory which says this.)

 

[Dragons87]

No, it's because of men like Dawkins and Hawking - brilliant men, who make a strong point for evolution without a god.

So they do, and all of us reject it. Just because atheists support a certain position it means that their position is unsupportable?

There is nothing in the theory that even mentions a deity. You are inserting Him into it.

I spent four years of my life studying this theory from a psychological point of view, and not once did any of my professors say, "Well you know, even though we're not mentioning this to you... there could be a god behind all these random processes." No. No one said anything of the sort to me.

And why should they? They're teaching science, not religion. As Mallon said, science makes no comment on the existence of God. Making no comment is neither denying nor affirming. In essence it's up to the beholder to add, or not add, whatever to the theory. So yes, Christian evolutionists added God in where science doesn't care.

They simply used the word evolution as a substitute for God - "Well, evolution designed us this way. Evolution dictated this," etc. It was as though evolution was its own consciousness. Maybe it is, who knows?

You're quite right. I have never understood why atheist evolutionists use such verbs. But that's a debate on the use of language.

The problem is that evolution and Christian dogma / doctrine do not coincide. You are attempting to MAKE them, like forcing a square peg into a round hole. It simply does not work.

"Evolutionary creationist" is an oxymoron. What's next, being a Christian atheist or a Jewish Muslim? Those are mutually exclusive terms. Either God created humans or He did not. If life evolved via natural processes, so be it. But in no way does God get credit for that, since it simply happened. It is nothing but conjecture to say that God was somehow behind the scenes (?) directing it. How does one "direct" the natural processes of science and evolution? It would have happened as it did, without Him anyway (so the theory says).

But I still don't understand it - why must a natural process mean that God is not involved? Let's take something less contentious - the water cycle.

We know that it rains because the sun heats up liquid water, causing it to evaporate as water vapour, then condense into clouds as they cool down in the upper atmosphere. When water droplets in the clouds become too heavy they then fall as rain.

I hope you will agree that the water cycle is a completely natural process. But at the same time the Bible says plainly that it is God who sends rain (Matthew 5:45).

According to the principle you hold with evolution, it seems that rain can either be God's work or a natural process - but not both. Well, which is it?

If you answer "both", which I hope you will, then you will understand how evolution can both be a natural process and God's amazing handiwork.

Why quote the Bible? We're going to accept Hebrews literally but NOT Genesis? That does not follow. I can understand taking some of the writings and prophets as metaphors, for they were. But nowhere is it said Genesis is a false account or a fable. Paul alluded to Adam as a real person. Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24 to the religious zealots of His day.

Hebrews was an advisory letter, so we can understand it literally. Genesis was an attempt at explaining the establishment of the whole universe. Do you think such an amazing event can or should be fit into two chapters of a book that is 50 chapters long?

Paul alluded to "Adam", but "Adam" may mean both "a man" and "mankind" in Hebrew. Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24, but that wasn't to verify the literal interpretation of creation, but affirm the teaching that family life should be honoured.

I've even heard of Job as a parable, and that I can somehow accept. So don't think I am a literalist in every sense, I'm not. But I do not accept man as a glorified ape who randomly evolved as some mere natural process. (You'll say you don't either - but in a sense, you do. You accept the theory which says this.)

I don't mind. Apes are beautiful creatures, and they are God's creation as well. Are you saying that God's designs aren't good enough for you?

 

[er72]

Paul alluded to "Adam", but "Adam" may mean both "a man" and "mankind" in Hebrew. Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24, but that wasn't to verify the literal interpretation of creation, but affirm the teaching that family life should be honoured.



I don't mind. Apes are beautiful creatures, and they are God's creation as well. Are you saying that God's designs aren't good enough for you?

No, I'm saying I am better than an animal. Now, I know many people do act like animals, if not worse, but I'm not like that.

Why should family life be honored, if we're just apes? Apes do not honor their families. Most animals mate with multiple partners, commit homosexuality and kill other members of their species over food and mates. Should we?

Why not, if we too, are just part of the 'animal kingdom?'

 

[Dragons87]

No, I'm saying I am better than an animal. Now, I know many people do act like animals, if not worse, but I'm not like that.

Why should family life be honored, if we're just apes? Apes do not honor their families. Most animals mate with multiple partners, commit homosexuality and kill other members of their species over food and mates. Should we?

Why not, if we too, are just part of the 'animal kingdom?'

"Just apes"? God's grand design - "just apes" to you?

Well, the designer of animals was God, after all. So in essence, God allows animals to have multiple partners, commit homosexuality and kill other members of their species over food and mates. How would you square that circle? Why did God allow that to happen?

And it would be helpful for me to understand your viewpoint if I could have an answer about my question on the water cycle. The process of how rain falls is completely scientifically explainable, but the Bible also states plainly that it is God who sends rain. So what causes rain - God, or natural processes?

 

[lismore]

How do you KNOW God is real; or is it just something that you take 'on faith'?

Hello

When I was a helper/teacher in Sunday School in an AOG church I ran into some issues. The teenagers would come to church, then all week in school/college be taught science, evolution etc.

They would come into Sunday school with questions. The particular church took a very uncompromising stance on just about everything. So basically if they didnt believe x,y, and z then they weren't considered real Christians.

All of those young people left the church because of the uncompromising stance. Many of the issues were not necessary to salvation and in my opinion were often unanswerable this side of eternity.

Salvation was accomplished by Jesus at the cross, God is real because he answers prayer! God is love, do his people love one another, or are they feuding because of the suspected age of a pile of rocks?

Do we have to make it so complicated and unyielding that people are driven away from the church?

E.G You do not have to believe in a talking snake to be a Christian, but some places you do.

 

[Mallon]

No, it's because of men like Dawkins and Hawking - brilliant men, who make a strong point for evolution without a god.

Who cares what they think? They think EVERYTHING happens without a god: evolution, conception, weather, the movement of the planets... you name it. For a Christian, you sure do invest a lot in what atheists think. Dawkins is a great scientist, but he's a HORRIBLE philosopher or theologian.

There is nothing in the theory that even mentions a deity. You are inserting Him into it.

So what? Again, this is just a reflection of your own deism.
If you're sick and you take some medication and your health improves, do you not thank God for healing you? Or do you just assume that because God isn't mentioned in the medicinal ingredients on the back of the box, He had nothing to do with it?

The problem is that evolution and Christian dogma / doctrine do not coincide.

With respect, given the rampant deism you've espoused so far, I hardly think you're in a position to pass judgment about what is and is not compatible with Christianity. The issue here isn't evolution -- it's the difference between how YECs and evolutionary creationists view God at work in the world. The former generally view God as a magician who occasionally interjects Himself in the world to tinker with His creation, and do not see God as a constant presence in the world; the latter generally view God as the creator and constant sustainer of everything, including even natural processes, which would not exist apart from the Lord's providence.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Er72: Put it this way:

- We believe God created everything that exists. Therefore whatever discoveries we make were made by him. Doesn't it seem odd to try and prove he does not exist using his own creation?

- In cases where the evidence contradicts the Bible there are two options - either the so-called evidence is wrong or our interpretation is wrong. In cases where the evidence is overwhelming then our personal understanding of the Bible is wrong, not the Bible itself.

- There are events in the Bible so outlandish that until we see the evidence we cannot possibly believe such events happen. With the advance of science we have learned to manipulate natural laws to accomplish the unnatural. Now we argue that such events can happen, but that they happen without divine intervention. In other words it either doesn't happen or it happens naturally. This argument deliberately leaves out the idea of God.

 

[chilehed]

If man evolved, where does God fit into the equation?...

Where does he fit in if stars develop in nebulae?

 

[mark kennedy]

With respect, given the rampant deism you've espoused so far, I hardly think you're in a position to pass judgment about what is and is not compatible with Christianity. The issue here isn't evolution -- it's the difference between how YECs and evolutionary creationists view God at work in the world. The former generally view God as a magician who occasionally interjects Himself in the world to tinker with His creation, and do not see God as a constant presence in the world; the latter generally view God as the creator and constant sustainer of everything, including even natural processes, which would not exist apart from the Lord's providence.

Ok, YEC is not remotely deistic, that's absurd. You promote false statements regarding the clear testimony of Scripture and now you want to falsely accuse Creationists of deism because they believe in God as Creator. You are constantly spouting these absurdities with no justification.

God acting in time and space is not deism, the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means is. You have just read us the theistic evolutionist pedigree.

Deism is belief in a God or first cause based on reason, rather than on faith or revelation. Most deists believe that God does not interfere with the world or create miracles. Theistic evolution​

No self respecting deist would admit a miracle like the creation of life on this planet by divine fiat. Creationists by definition do not only admit, but defend that foundational doctrine of God as Creator. That sounds like vintage theistic evolution to me.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[CryptoLutheran]

The Deist god is a philosophical entity that wound up the clock (the universe) and has let things continue on their natural course without any divine activity.

Theistic evolution doesn't say God is removed from the mundane but that God is present in the mundane. That's theism, not deism. That's why it's Theistic evolution, not Deistic evolution.

Suggesting that God can only be present through ad hoc miracles suggests that God is otherwise the cosmic clock-maker and the universe is simply wound up on its course unmanaged by the pervasive activity of the Divine. That's a Deistic god who on occasion uses ad hoc miracles; so it may not be a pure Deism, but it's pretty close. In traditional Theism God is present in both the natural and the super-natural, in both the incredible and the credible, both the miraculous and the mundane. God is just as much in the birth of a newborn child as He is in the Israelites crossing the red sea.

That's the Biblical God, the God who is "[...]God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Ephesians 4:6).

Asserting that the Divine Presence can only exist through ad hoc miracles is a departure from the historic Christian faith and the Biblical portrait of God who is not just the Creator of all things, but the One who holds all things together by "the mighty power of his command." (Hebrews 1:3). That includes the gravitational forces that hold planets in their orbits as well as the nuclear forces that bind atoms together; it also includes the evolutionary and genetic processes that make me more than simply a genetic amalgam of my father and mother's chromosomes.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[mark kennedy]

I just can't believe you guys are seriously arguing this.

The Deist god is a philosophical entity that wound up the clock (the universe) and has let things continue on their natural course without any divine activity.

I know what it is and it could apply equally well to intelligent design and theistic evolution since God does make the universe and need not involve himself further. One thing is for sure, this in no way, shape or form describes the creationist.

Theistic evolution doesn't say God is removed from the mundane but that God is present in the mundane. That's theism, not deism. That's why it's Theistic evolution, not Deistic evolution.

Theistic evolution is a belief in God but does not differentiate from naturalistic evolution aside from that.

Suggesting that God can only be present through ad hoc miracles suggests that God is otherwise the cosmic clock-maker and the universe is simply wound up on its course unmanaged by the pervasive activity of the Divine. That's a Deistic god who on occasion uses ad hoc miracles; so it may not be a pure Deism, but it's pretty close. In traditional Theism God is present in both the natural and the super-natural, in both the incredible and the credible, both the miraculous and the mundane. God is just as much in the birth of a newborn child as He is in the Israelites crossing the red sea.

Suggesting, teaching and defending God's interaction in his created world disqualifies you as a deist. What is more I don't consider God's signs, miracles and mighty deeds during redemptive history to be 'ad hoc'. Now you are making a sweeping generality that creationists are some how denying God's interaction in the mundane which is simply not true. Why you are saying this doesn't concern me, the fact that you are saying it in defiance of what the words actually means concerns me greatly.

That's the Biblical God, the God who is "[...]God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Ephesians 4:6).

Asserting that the Divine Presence can only exist through ad hoc miracles is a departure from the historic Christian faith and the Biblical portrait of God who is not just the Creator of all things, but the One who holds all things together by "the mighty power of his command." (Hebrews 1:3). That includes the gravitational forces that hold planets in their orbits as well as the nuclear forces that bind atoms together; it also includes the evolutionary and genetic processes that make me more than simply a genetic amalgam of my father and mother's chromosomes.

-CryptoLutheran

There is no such assertion, you are making the assertion out of thin air. Creationists believe in miracles and affirm the testimony of Scripture miracles and mundane events as well. Believing in miracles does not make you a deist, that is the height of absurdity. There is no contention that God can only assert himself through miracles, only that He has.

When a sinner comes under conviction for sin, hears and understand the Gospel, responds in faith, receives the Holy Spirit and bears fruit to the glory of God that is a miracle. It is not a miracle that is different from the original creation, the incarnation, the resurrection or the ascension of Christ. The same power the was exercised at creation was exercised in the tomb where Jesus laid.

We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (Romans 6:4)​

Again theistic evolutionists are uniformly defending an erroneous position and defending it strenuously, fallaciously and in direct contradiction to the essential meaning of the requisite terminology. They do this with the scientific evidence as well as the philosophical and theological principles. Am I really supposed to take this seriously?

Now I'm a deist because I believe in miracles, how utterly ridiculous.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Mallon]

Ok, YEC is not remotely deistic, that's absurd. You promote false statements regarding the clear testimony of Scripture and now you want to falsely accuse Creationists of deism because they believe in God as Creator. You are constantly spouting these absurdities with no justification.

God acting in time and space is not deism, the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means is. You have just read us the theistic evolutionist pedigree.

Deism is belief in a God or first cause based on reason, rather than on faith or revelation. Most deists believe that God does not interfere with the world or create miracles. Theistic evolution​

No self respecting deist would admit a miracle like the creation of life on this planet by divine fiat. Creationists by definition do not only admit, but defend that foundational doctrine of God as Creator. That sounds like vintage theistic evolution to me.

Have a nice day
Mark

You may not meet the classical definition of deism that you just provided, but as shernren has pointed out to you previously, your (you and er72) understanding of God's action in the world is functionally deistic. You both have admitted to your belief that natural processes are "atheistic" in that God does not involve Himself with the regular processes of nature. Instead, you believe that God's only actions pertain to occasional miraculous intervention in the world. This is in contrast to the traditional Christian belief of God as sustainer of everything at all times, which you apparently reject, otherwise you wouldn't argue that natural processes are atheistic as you regularly do.

 

[mark kennedy]

You may not meet the classical definition of deism that you just provided, but as shernren has pointed out to you previously, your (you and er72) understanding of God's action in the world is functionally deistic.

Shernren delights in arguing for the absurd and I think he enjoys contradicting the obvious. My understanding is that God created the heavens and the earth, life on this planet, Adam and Eve by divine fiat 6 to 10 thousand years ago which disqualifies me from being a deist.

Now you are insisting on arguing for a blatantly false premise and pretending I don't know what the word means.

You both have admitted to your belief that natural processes are "atheistic" in that God does not involve Himself with the regular processes of nature.

We have admitted nothing of the sort. I have never so much as hinted that God does not involve himself in nature, in fact, I have argued for years for God as Creator for years. You think you can twist my words and more importantly, God's Word to mean whatever suites your latest whim. If there is an antithesis for atheism it Creationism and you know it. You just don't like the fact that there is no difference for the philosophy you have put in vaguely theological terminology and atheistic materialism.

This is a silly 'I'm rubber your glue' argument, nothing more.

Instead, you believe that God's only actions pertain to occasional miraculous intervention in the world. This is in contrast to the traditional Christian belief of God as sustainer of everything at all times.

Nonsense, I have never suggested, believed or subscribed to an such thing and you know it. Traditional Christian theism has affirmed that Christ is Creator, Sustainer and Heir to all of creation:

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. (Hebrews 1:1-4)​

Do you really believe that you can twist words around like this and still be taken seriously. You grossly misrepresent the Scriptures and refuse correction. You make unwarranted accusations based on the latest rant of shernren while shamelessly denying the clear meaning of a term, 'deist' that flatly denies miracles. Why? Because I affirm the miracles of the Bible are redemptive history. Then you have the unmitigated gall to boast that you represent traditional Christian theism when Christians have always affirmed God as Creator. That is until the advent of Darwinism and it's sister philosophy, Liberal Theology.

 

[Mallon]

mark, if you believe that God is truly the constant sustainer of nature, why do you regularly argue that natural processes are atheistic and occur apart from God? For example, you recently referred to "naturalistic assumptions that exclude God". Those don't sound like the words of someone who believes that God is ever-present in nature. Just because something occurs naturally doesn't mean it excludes God.

 

[mark kennedy]

mark, if you believe that God is truly the constant sustainer of nature, why do you regularly argue that natural processes are atheistic and occur apart from God? For example, you recently referred to "naturalistic assumptions that exclude God". Those don't sound like the words of someone who believes that God is ever-present in nature. Just because something occurs naturally doesn't mean it excludes God.

I have always argued against naturalistic assumptions with regards to natural history, biology and evolution, that makes me a creationist, not a deist. God transcends nature but exists apart from it, it's called the aseity of God. What I am arguing against and always have is the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic causes and you know it.

God transcends nature and remains eternally altogether other at the same time. You could make the argument it's paradoxical but to try to make the argument that a young earth creationist is a deist is utterly absurd.

Now you could make the argument that ID is deistic, I could see that. The Paley watchmaker argument does bear an interesting resemblance to the idea of making a clock, winding it up and doing little else. But Young Earth Creationism? Come on Mallon, you have to know that you can't believe in miracles on such a vast scale and be remotely confused with a deist.

Why didn't you just tell shernren he was wrong and let it go? It would have made a lot more sense then arguing that Creationists are deists when the two concepts are poles apart.