If the universe is <10,000 old....

[Smidlee]

So, you'd take the same position I do on the subject, God makes us in our very being within and using our mother's womb/natural processes. So the question then is could not God have made everything through these so called natural processes?

Can man be explained totally by natural processes? Scientist still haven't figured out why human cloning failed even though all the natural stuff was present. Of course scientist may learn how to clone humans or maybe not.
Also there is a fine line of what we would consider natural vs supernatural. If life is supernatural yet happens every day wouldn't we see it as natural?

 

[Keachian]

Can man be explained totally by natural processes? Scientist still haven't figured out why human cloning failed even though all the natural stuff was present. Of course scientist may learn how to clone humans or maybe not.

I honestly don't know, I don't think it is a worry for me whether we can reach that state because science can never really deal with morality, I'd rather on this subject be talking about whether or not it is moral or ethical to perform such procedures, possibly even going in to theological ideas of whether such a creature would have a soul, be in the image of God, whatever.

Also there is a fine line of what we would consider natural vs supernatural. If life is supernatural yet happens every day wouldn't we see it as natural?

I think this is the crux of the argument, but I also think of it as rather disingenuous in that to split into natural vs supernatural implies at least to atheists that there are things which God is in control of (that is the supernatural) and those that he isn't, that just happen, whereas the reality from my perspective is that God is in control of all. However regardless of that, I believe life is miraculous, holding my baby sister 7 years ago and seeing her grow up, it's quite amazing.

 

[Assyrian]

Again, the fact that there were theologians dogmatic about geocentrism is not in dispute. So I don't know what we're arguing about in that regard. Yes, there were dogmatic geocentrists just like their are dogmatic TEs which don't like any other view talked about. I'm simply saying there is relatively very little on the subject discussed. You take the whole of Luther, Calvin's writings, and perhaps just a fraction of a percent is spent on this issue. And when the mainstream view changed, you have virtually no resistance. It just died a very quick death.

The evidence says it was a major issue, people back then said it was a major issue. You can't claim it wasn't because people wrote about other things too. Homosexuality is a pretty major issue today, yet google only comes up with 29 million hits out of a trillion webpages it indexes, that is one page out of every 34,483. I don't know why you are trying to downplay the significance of the Galileo trial. Theologians opposed science and condemned Galileo on the basis of their interpretation of scripture and the repercussions are still begin felt today.

Again, my theory is, that geocentrism constrained scripture badly, especially in the aspect of God revolving around man. It caused havoc for biblical theology.

An example of the havoc it is supposed to have caused would be good. You need to go beyond what you imagine people must have thought to understand what they actually did think.

I don't think you quite understand the god of the gaps issue. All YECs believe that God upholds natural processes. But we are also theists in that we believe He also acts in special ways—miracles.

That's what I said. It is just with evolution you go all God of the gaps and think natural processes exclude God.

Turning the water into wine at Cana, is an example of a special act of God. Yet, there are natural explanations as well. Yet, there are also natural explanations for wine, which according to you are to be preferred. But this is error. A possible natural explanation does not disprove a miracle.

I addresses that with my Aquinas quote.

You quote Augustine as if he somehow embodies traditional christianity. And yet, he doesn't help your case at all. You do realize that Augustine believed creation to be an instantaneous miracle? IOW he didn't believe the universe was merely the result of natural processes. He also was a young earther believing the universe was only 10 thousand years old. Now I don't agree with Augustine's theology in many areas, but is he really the best example you can come up with?

If you read my quote, that was Aquinas writing in 1273, apparently the church still held Augustine's view of science and scripture interpretation eight centuries Augustine. Here is a quote from Paschal in 1657.

When we meet with a passage even in the Scripture, the literal meaning of which, at first sight, appears contrary to what the senses or reason are certainly persuaded of, we must not attempt to reject their testimony in this case, and yield them up to the authority of that apparent sense of the Scripture, but we must interpret the Scripture, and seek out therein another sense agreeable to that sensible truth.... And as Scripture may be interpreted in different ways, whereas the testimony of the senses is uniform, we must in these matters adopt as the true interpretation of Scripture that view which corresponds with the faithful report of the senses.
An opposite mode of treatment, so far from procuring respect to the Scripture, would only expose it to the contempt of infidels; because, as St. Augustine says, “when they found that we believed, on the authority of Scripture, in things which they assuredly knew to be false, they would laugh at our credulity with regard to its more recondite truths, such as the resurrection of the dead and eternal life.” “And by this means,” adds St. Thomas, “we would render our religion contemptible in their eyes, and shut up its entrance into their minds.
Blaise Pascal Provincial Letters
​

Even more relevant for this discussion is that Cardinal Bellarmine said the same thing.

If there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated.
Cardinal Bellarmine, Letter to Foscarini 1615
​

There seem to be a contradiction in your argument here, you seem to approve of the fact that the church abandoned geocentrism in the century or so after Galileo, yet you disagree the reason they changed their interpretation - because science showed them their interpretation were wrong. Which is it? And if the church right to change its geocentric interpretation when science showed it was mistaken, why was it wrong do the same with the young earth interpretation?

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

Wow, we don't even agree on this term. Methodological naturalism is not the idea that natural factors are considered first. No no no. Science doesn't proclaim miracles when it is stumped. Anomalies stay in the unknown column until a reasonable natural explanation is arrived at. All answers in science must be natural, uniformitarian explanations.

I actually think we mostly agree about methodological naturalism. Yes, first, and then any speculations are outside of science (that's why science does't proclaim miracles when it is stumped).

But, I think you need to be more careful about "uniformitarian". Uniformitarian often means slow, gradual processes. Science doesn't require explanations to be uniformitarian in that sense, as any study of the K-T extinction or the yellowstone supervolcano shows. You are correct if you mean "uniformitarian" in the sense that the physical laws we see today are what has always operated (as is a practical requirement for any investigation of any kind, in fact, for us to live our daily lives).

I have to give props for that one.

: )

The term seems to fit well.

If you make up your own terms, you can expect that your posts won't be understood.

For they deny miraculous intervention in the creation process,

Yes

relegating God's actions to strictly being prior to the BB.

No - it is all "God's Actions". My Catholic Bible is clear on that, and most other Bibles are as well. - See John 5:17, and Heb 1:11.

That's quite alright. The more disagreement over terms the better. They make for nice long posts where every sentence comes into dispute. It makes for some very riveting reading.

: )

Papias

 

[Keachian]

For they deny miraculous intervention in the creation process,

Yes

I'd disagree with you here, just because we understand how something happened in natural terms doesn't make it any less a "miraculous intervention" I'd say that the Big Bang especially the expansion from a singularity is miraculous intervention.

No - it is all "God's Actions".

Yep, which leads me to wonder why after stating this Calminian still wants to call me a deist, is it that he sees the upholding of the laws of nature as a passive thing that God does? Or is God active? I personally go with active.

 

[Papias]

Progmonk wrote:

I'd disagree with you here, just because we understand how something happened in natural terms doesn't make it any less a "miraculous intervention"

Yes, I can see things that way too. I used the narrower definition of a "miracle" as something that violates natural law simply to show Cal that even with that, you are still not a deist.

Papias

 

[Calminian]

Cal wrote:


I actually think we mostly agree about methodological naturalism. Yes, first, and then any speculations are outside of science (that's why science does't proclaim miracles when it is stumped).

But, I think you need to be more careful about "uniformitarian". Uniformitarian often means slow, gradual processes. Science doesn't require explanations to be uniformitarian in that sense, as any study of the K-T extinction or the yellowstone supervolcano shows. You are correct if you mean "uniformitarian" in the sense that the physical laws we see today are what has always operated (as is a practical requirement for any investigation of any kind, in fact, for us to live our daily lives).

When I speak of uniformitarianism, I'm using in the latter sense. And yes, science must assume this a priori in any subject it is investigating. And I'm all for it, and wouldn't want them to conduct science in any other way. In scientific investigations, miracles must be precluded methodologically.

However, I'm also of the opinion, that on occasion, God breaks natural uniformitarian patterns by either adding to them, altering them a bit for a period of time. Thus I must conclude that during those times, science will not only be inaccurate, but also could be quite fooled, and wildly off it it's calculations.

If you make up your own terms, you can expect that your posts won't be understood.

Sometimes you have to come up with a term or two in these kinds of debates.

No - it is all "God's Actions". My Catholic Bible is clear on that, and most other Bibles are as well. - See John 5:17, and Heb 1:11.

What I mean is God's special actions, not the upholding of natural law. Generally, acts of God are understood as special acts. But I'm also of the opinion that God upholds the normalcy of the universe as well.

 

[Calminian]

I'd disagree with you here, just because we understand how something happened in natural terms doesn't make it any less a "miraculous intervention" I'd say that the Big Bang especially the expansion from a singularity is miraculous intervention.

Yep, which leads me to wonder why after stating this Calminian still wants to call me a deist, is it that he sees the upholding of the laws of nature as a passive thing that God does? Or is God active? I personally go with active.

Regardless, deism has nothing to do with whether or not God does something actively or passively. In regard to upholding natural laws, it's all active. Passive actions have to to with reacting to the decisions of others. I don't think there's anything passive about God upholding natural law. He's not reacting to anything.

Deism is the idea that God did not intervene in the world miraculously after the initial miracle of creating it. He's just been merely upholding the natural laws He created ever since. Now if you believe in the Resurrection, and Christ's miracles on earth, you are not a deist.

But are you an origins deist? (yeah, I guess this another one of my sort of made up terms) IOW, do you feel that apart from upholding natural laws, did God act in miraculous in the creative process as well, apart from the creation of natural laws and matter? If so, then science would be (and I believe is) hindered at discerning our past. If not, science is likely very accurate.

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

When I speak of uniformitarianism, I'm using in the latter sense. And yes, science must assume this a priori in any subject it is investigating. And I'm all for it, and wouldn't want them to conduct science in any other way. In scientific investigations, miracles must be precluded methodologically.

However, I'm also of the opinion, that on occasion, God breaks natural uniformitarian patterns by either adding to them, altering them a bit for a period of time. Thus I must conclude that during those times, science will not only be inaccurate, but also could be quite fooled, and wildly off it it's calculations.

Sure. We both agree that in any question of whether or not there was a miracle, we first look at natural causes. That's why we both reject the "miracles" of Jesus on a tortilla, mary in window glass, and so on. We first looked at them based on the evidence.

If someone is to claim that we should not first look based on the evidence, evaluating natural explanations, then they, out of consistency, must accept everything from Jesus in the mayo to the Islamic girl who produces crystals out of her eyes. If we, on the other hand, look at the evidence, then evolution and deep time have more evidence than most other areas of science, and are established well beyond a shadow of a doubt - with more evidence than say, the existence of the Roman empire, or the United States Civil war.

do you feel that apart from upholding natural laws, did God act in miraculous in the creative process as well, apart from the creation of natural laws and matter? If so, then science would be (and I believe is) hindered at discerning our past. If not, science is likely very accurate.

I see this as a false dichotomy. In my view, because God miraculously made a soul in the first (transitional ape to human) human, the real, literal, historical person Adam, that he performed a miracle during the creative process. It's also entirely possible that many or even all of the millions of beneficial mutations were miracles too. Thus, there are miracles invovled, and still, science is very accurate (God is not lying to us).

More importantly, even without those, "deist" still wouldn't fit, because diests don't necessarily see God as actively and constantly upholding the natural laws, as we (all three of us, you, me, and progmonk) explicitly do.

Sometimes you have to come up with a term or two in these kinds of debates.

Yes, but that's for when there isn't already an accepted term.

When you try to use a new term for something that already has a term in wide use, you appear to be trying to either confuse things or worse, to be trying to insult the group you "re-labeled" by name-calling, insteand of trying to have a constructive discussion.

I err on the side of benevolence, and guess that you are trying to have a constructive discussion - in case making up new terms is counterproductive at best.

Originally Posted by Papias

No - it is all "God's Actions". My Catholic Bible is clear on that, and most other Bibles are as well. - See John 5:17, and Heb 1:11.

What I mean is God's special actions, not the upholding of natural law. Generally, acts of God are understood as special acts. But I'm also of the opinion that God upholds the normalcy of the universe as well.
​

Cool. We agree there too.

Papias

 

[Keachian]

Calminian, you are still playing so loosey goosey with my words and what I believe, does my faith icon confuse you our something? I'm a Christian therefore I believe in the Incarnation of God if this is not the most startling miraculous intervention I have no idea what is, then furthermore I believe that my God hung on a Cross taking away the Sins of the world, was buried three days and rose again such that in him we might have eternal life, this belief is a folly and a stumbling block, but it is also fulfilling of prophecy, again where God intervened and spoke directly through and to his chosen people.

So why are you still insistent on calling me a deist? Oh I see its about name calling as you've just made the goal posts move so as to focus it just around the origins idea. It doesn't matter in my opinion whether we are "origins deists " or not, (I'd still discard the term) our faith, our apologetics, our worship focus should be the cross if there were no cross and no resurrection we as Christians are the most pitiful creatures our Scriptures even tell us this.

 

[Calminian]

Calminian, you are still playing so loosey goosey with my words and what I believe, does my faith icon confuse you our something? I'm a Christian therefore I believe in the Incarnation of God if this is not the most startling miraculous intervention I have no idea what is, then furthermore I believe that my God hung on a Cross taking away the Sins of the world, was buried three days and rose again such that in him we might have eternal life, this belief is a folly and a stumbling block, but it is also fulfilling of prophecy, again where God intervened and spoke directly through and to his chosen people.

I'm confused. When I have ever doubted this? I just acknowledged it, in fact.

So why are you still insistent on calling me a deist?....

I'll have to stop you there, and kindly ask you to read my post again. You completely misunderstood. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Calminian]

Sure. We both agree that in any question of whether or not there was a miracle, we first look at natural causes. ....

I'll have to stop you right there, because we don't agree on this. We should look at all evidences to make a determination about anything. There shouldn't be a default belief that's excepted until proven wrong. This is especially true in the origins debate.

 

[Keachian]

I'm confused. When I have ever doubted this? I just acknowledged it, in fact.

Well you throwing around the deism label like its nobodies business says to me that you do doubt it, but yes you're right, you did acknowledge that.

I'll have to stop you there, and kindly ask you to read my post again. You completely misunderstood. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I did and edited my post accordingly, and you don't actually address my point, I'll restate it and quote the bit of my post that you don't address:

Oh I see its about name calling as you've just made the goal posts move so as to focus it just around the origins idea. It doesn't matter in my opinion whether we are "origins deists " or not, (I'd still discard the term) our faith, our apologetics, our worship focus should be the cross if there were no cross and no resurrection we as Christians are the most pitiful creatures our Scriptures even tell us this.

Redefining deism so that it only applies to origins as you have done is moving the goalposts and revealing that all you really want to do is call me names, regardless of whether they are applicable to me or not. IMO it is ridiculous to suggest that our faith, apologetics and worship should be focused on how God created rather than the Cross, if it were not for the Cross, if it were not for God communing with Abraham and the Patriarchs, and Prophets then our God becomes an irrelevance. No ifs or buts about it, Paul doesn't tell us that if we don't accept Genesis as strictly literal that our faith is compromised and that if it were true then we are pitiable creatures does he? No! He firmly says that it is the Cross and the resurrection that is the central historical fact of Christianity and to deny it is to deny Christ and give up on hope. Why then do YEC so often go out trying to defend this thing which is not our hope? Our Hope is Christ, to live is Christ and to die is gain!

 

[Calminian]

Well you throwing around the deism label like its nobodies business says to me that you do doubt it, but yes you're right, you did acknowledge that.

It's not my fault that the mere mention of the word in any context sounds like an accusation to you.

Redefining deism so that it only applies to origins as you have done is moving the goalposts and revealing that all you really want to do is call me names, regardless of whether they are applicable to me or not.

It is if that's actually what I said. It is categorically not what I said. I'll ask again, please read my post again.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'll have to stop you right there, because we don't agree on this. We should look at all evidences to make a determination about anything. There shouldn't be a default belief that's excepted until proven wrong. This is especially true in the origins debate.

He is not talking about a default explanation. He is following an old RCC tradition of exploring every naturalistic explanation before deciding that God has in fact, performed a miracle. Rest assured, the miracles of the Bible are not in question in Rome are within the believing Christian community aside from some sincere skepticism and honest doubts.

The Creation being the cornerstone of all Christian belief and well beyond any such scrutiny.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Keachian]

It's not my fault that the mere mention of the word in any context sounds like an accusation to you.

Yes, well it's because it's what I'd class as a heresy which I used to believe in.

But are you an origins deist? (yeah, I guess this another one of my sort of made up terms) IOW, do you feel that apart from upholding natural laws, did God act in miraculous in the creative process as well, apart from the creation of natural laws and matter? If so, then science would be (and I believe is) hindered at discerning our past. If not, science is likely very accurate.

I don't believe that science is hindered at discerning the past whether God acted in an intervening manner or not, and I believe that the implication that God intervenes as opposed to always being present in nature, again is sidelining God. To say that God upholding natural laws is not intervening is imo categorically wrong.

 

[Keachian]

The Creation being the cornerstone of all Christian belief and well beyond any such scrutiny.

No, St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles are quite clear that the resurrection is the linchpin of Christianity, Paul is the clearest when he says:

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

So tell me if someone accepts what you believe about creation and yet rejects the resurrection, are they Christian?

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

I'll have to stop you right there, because we don't agree on this. We should look at all evidences to make a determination about anything.

I think most people live their lives looking at natural causes first. For instance, if your car doesn't start, you first check the battery or such before conducting an exorcism. If you have a headache, you first take some advil before yelling at the demon to leave your head. If you feel chest pains, you call 911 before grabbing the holy water. This is also true in cases in the sciences - when we combine hydrogen and oxygen to make water, we explain it with chemistry, etc. We don't invoke supernatural causes when the natural ones are clearly supported by the evidence. You can even see this in the behavior of creationists, who pretend as if the evidence were insufficient instead of simply admitting the evidence, and arguing for a supernatural cause anyway. If they did, as you say, look to the supernatural even if the evidence is clearly in support of natural explanation, then they wouldn't spend so much time contesting the evidence - it simply wouldn't be relevant.

I'm not "barring discussion" of anything. I'm pointing out that all of us - yourself included - don't invoke supernatural explanations when the evidence for a natural cause is clear.

For the same reason, Cal, don't you agree that claims of miracles should be first investigated based on the evidence? You surely don't think we should blindly swallow the claims of Jesus on a tortilla, righta? Maybe explain to me why you reject the claims of Jesus on a tortilla (if you do)?


**********************************************


It's sad to see mark yet again denigrate the importance of the resurrection by saying that something else is the cornerstone of Christianity. And we wonder why Christianity is dying.

mark wrote:

The Creation being the cornerstone of all Christian belief

mark, don't you agree that claims of miracles should be first investigated based on the evidence? Don't you agree with that RCC practice of investigating claims of miracles before accepting them? You surely don't think we should blindly swallow the claims of Jesus on a tortilla, righta?

Papias

 

[Calminian]

I'm not "barring discussion" of anything. I'm pointing out that all of us - yourself included - don't invoke supernatural explanations when the evidence for a natural cause is clear.

Except in those areas where I think a miracle happened. For instance, if someone made a scientific medical argument that Christ didn't rise from the dead in 3 days, I'd dismiss that line of argument, due to the fact that i had examined the testimonial evidence we have from the Bible and other history books. Because of that evidence, I think the supernatural explanation should be considered first and foremost.

For the same reason, Cal, don't you agree that claims of miracles should be first investigated based on the evidence? You surely don't think we should blindly swallow the claims of Jesus on a tortilla, righta? Maybe explain to me why you reject the claims of Jesus on a tortilla (if you do)?

No, but this is not an area where I believe other evidences point to a miracle. The Genesis account is explicitly conveying miraculous acts of God. Thus, to start with the presupposition of naturalism would be to reject God's word.

It's sad to see mark yet again denigrate the importance of the resurrection by saying that something else is the cornerstone of Christianity. And we wonder why Christianity is dying.

If it is dying it's because we're throwing out the text for the sake of naturalism. You may want to look in the mirror.

 

[Calminian]

I don't believe that science is hindered at discerning the past whether God acted in an intervening manner or not, a.....

I realize this. I can only conclude you don't understand the presuppositions behind science—particularly uniformitarianism. If you did, you'd never make that claim.