Lutheran POV

FaithT · Apr 2, 2020

I read this question elsewhere and want to know what you think?

“Genesis 1 aside, does that fact that physical systems being able to naturally evolve and adapt on their own without any sort of intervention show that there is no need for a creator or a God? Also, does the growing amount of evidence for abiogenesis also lend support to the idea that God is simply not needed for systems to arise and evolve?”

Athanasius377 · Apr 2, 2020

Hope1960 said:
I read this question elsewhere and want to know what you think?

“Genesis 1 aside, does that fact that physical systems being able to naturally evolve and adapt on their own without any sort of intervention show that there is no need for a creator or a God? Also, does the growing amount of evidence for abiogenesis also lend support to the idea that God is simply not needed for systems to arise and evolve?”

good question. So I will break a rule and answer a question with a question: why is there something rather than nothing? Second, who is responsible for something rather than nothing? Or what process is responsible for creating something? Lastly is this process able to build in it the ability to adapt? Or is it person guiding (it’s, or His) creation? Think carefully because the answer to your questions are dependent on the above.

FaithT · Apr 2, 2020

Athanasius377 said:
good question. So I will break a rule and answer a question with a question: why is there something rather than nothing? Second, who is responsible for something rather than nothing? Or what process is responsible for creating something? Lastly is this process able to build in it the ability to adapt? Or is it person guiding (it’s, or His) creation? Think carefully because the answer to your questions are dependent on the above.

I guess there’s something rather than nothing because God wanted it.
I guess Gods responsible for something rather than nothing.
I guess Gods guidance.
Maybe.
Probably.
Unless I’m wrong about Gods existence and life evolves by itself.

Halbhh · Apr 2, 2020

Hope1960 said:
I guess there’s something rather than nothing because God wanted it.
I guess Gods responsible for something rather than nothing.
I guess Gods guidance.
Maybe.
Probably.
Unless I’m wrong about Gods existence and life evolves by itself.

By "something rather than nothing" it is meant that anything of any kind exists at all. Not 'does evolution work' -- that's not the question.

Not even how-does-our-physics-work. Not the question.

Our question isn't about evolution or any aspect of physics (any/every evolution is merely an aspect of physics).

Instead, the question is why is there anything -- why is there any physics at all.

Why do any Universes at all ever exist?

For those that try to use physics to answer, they don't yet understand the question.

Daniel9v9 · Apr 3, 2020

Hmm. I'd say that's a historically uninformed and weak argument, for several reasons, but perhaps mostly given the inescapable evidence for intelligent design, which is why it has always been an obvious go-to argument for the existence of God.

I'll even go one step further to say that even if a person denies that the universe has a design, and that everything is simply random, the concept of "random" is also something. Randomness is not merely an absence of order, but is a property or idea in and of itself. So, to either claim that the world evolves on its own, or that everything is random, both make the world out to be its own creator - ultimately it's a kind of pantheism, where the universe is its own creator and god. This is not a scientific view, but a philosophical and ancient gnostic-religious view. Sadly, I think most people wouldn't consider it as such or even think about it. We can't separate science from philosophy entirely, and a lot of common beliefs in our day are not pure science, but they have underlying distinct philosophical notions.

FaithT · Apr 3, 2020

Hope1960 said:
I read this question elsewhere and want to know what you think?

“Genesis 1 aside, does that fact that physical systems being able to naturally evolve and adapt on their own without any sort of intervention show that there is no need for a creator or a God? Also, does the growing amount of evidence for abiogenesis also lend support to the idea that God is simply not needed for systems to arise and evolve?”

My question should be more direct. Since physical systems are able to evolve without intervention, and since there’s growing evidence for abiogenesis, is there any chance there is no God? Why or why not?

Daniel9v9 · Apr 3, 2020

Hope1960 said:
My question should be more direct. Since physical systems are able to evolve without intervention, and since there’s growing evidence for abiogenesis, is there any chance there is no God? Why or why not?

Well, first of all, the theory of abiogenesis consists of many big leaps of faith, and is far from concrete and factual. And again, there is an underlying philosophical understanding to this view that we can't divorce from the scientific theories it proposes.

But for the sake of argument, if we were to, for example, talk about microevolution, which can be observed, it doesn't contradict the existence of God. Rather, in it, we can see evidence of more intelligent design with clear and fixed natural boundaries.

In short, macroevolution and contemporary scientific origin theories do not disprove God, because (1) they lack concrete evidence and (2) instead of disproving God, they take on the form of pantheism, making the universe its own impersonal god, which is a huge presumption in and of itself.

FaithT · Apr 3, 2020

Daniel9v9 said:
Well, first of all, the theory of abiogenesis consists of many big leaps of faith, and is far from concrete and factual. And again, there is an underlying philosophical understanding to this view that we can't divorce from the scientific theories it proposes.

But for the sake of argument, if we were to, for example, talk about microevolution, which can be observed, it doesn't contradict the existence of God. Rather, in it, we can see evidence of more intelligent design with clear and fixed natural boundaries.

In short, macroevolution and contemporary scientific origin theories do not disprove God, because (1) they lack concrete evidence and (2) instead of disproving God, they take on the form of pantheism, making the universe its own impersonal god, which is a huge presumption in and of itself.

what if they get concrete evidence, or, in their opinion, concrete evidence?

Halbhh · Apr 3, 2020

Hope1960 said:
My question should be more direct. Since physical systems are able to evolve without intervention, and since there’s growing evidence for abiogenesis, is there any chance there is no God? Why or why not?

According to Genesis chapter 1, basically we see something strongly suggestive that this Universe is "very good" (or it's the direct words actually) for life. It's a wording that fits abiogenesis very well. God made this Universe, and made it very good. It's "very good" for us -- for life.

(And Earth in particular is a very good home, far better than other planets, since He chose to make it good for us.)

But, it's good to be aware that easy, obvious proof for God cannot be available, since it would directly contradict the Bible very extensively -- God wants 'faith' from us, that we believe (without seeing first) -- not merely seeing that He exists evidently and merely repenting from just self-interest alone. He wants people who will trust Him, even before they see proof -- "faith".

Daniel9v9 · Apr 3, 2020

Hope1960 said:
what if they get concrete evidence, or, in their opinion, concrete evidence?

Well, that's really impossible, because it would require us to witness and record first-hand the process of: (1) nothing becoming something (ex nihilo) by itself, (2) something inanimate becoming animate by itself, (3) something animate reproducing by itself, (4) something animate progressing from self-producing to needing a partner to reproduce by itself, and (5) for this animate being to radically change species.

There is simply no factual evidence for the above working out in a sequence, and so, it will always remain a theory. Now, its advocates may, as they do, gather a lot of compelling arguments for their views, but we should understand that this belief is not scientific in the strict sense that it's based on actual tangible facts, but it's an elaborate idea that is built upon a series of very big assumptions. To be honest, it's an idea that is perhaps undeservedly popularised by pop-scientist who are not experts in their fields, treating it as if it's factual, which then leads people to believe it's proven and true.

And, again, suppose all of these things did take place and we could record it. Wouldn't the next logical questions be "how?" and "why?". It would be remarkably supernatural, which would be very ironic, for that's the position the theory is supposed to defeat.

Halbhh · Apr 3, 2020

Hope1960 said:
I read this question elsewhere and want to know what you think?

“Genesis 1 aside, does that fact that physical systems being able to naturally evolve and adapt on their own without any sort of intervention show that there is no need for a creator or a God? Also, does the growing amount of evidence for abiogenesis also lend support to the idea that God is simply not needed for systems to arise and evolve?”

Mainstream science -- physics, astrophysics (study of stars, planets, the Universe) -- has shown us that this Universe is very well suited for life.

It's mainstream science stuff: I can show you the mainstream physics/astronomy about that.

In theory, because of what physics has found, life ought to often arise in this Universe, the way this Universe/physics works.... Ought to. On planets, over and over.

Ought to be widespread, is the thinking.

And also, we know from mainstream astronomy/astrophysics that that elementary life will over and over and over and over be extinguished by normal, typical, regular conditions around most all stars.

I can show that also, if you are interested.

It happens to fit Genesis chapter 1 perfectly though!

For example: that Earth was a water world early on has recently been found in mainstream science.

Want to see?

FaithT · Apr 3, 2020

Halbhh said:
Mainstream science -- physics, astrophysics (study of stars, planets, the Universe) -- has shown us that this Universe is very well suited for life.

It's mainstream science stuff: I can show you the mainstream physics/astronomy about that.

In theory, because of what physics has found, life ought to often arise in this Universe, the way this Universe/physics works.... Ought to. On planets, over and over.

Ought to be widespread, is the thinking.

And also, we know from mainstream astronomy/astrophysics that that elementary life will over and over and over and over be extinguished by normal, typical, regular conditions around most all stars.

I can show that also, if you are interested.

It happens to fit Genesis chapter 1 perfectly though!

For example: that Earth was a water world early on has recently been found in mainstream science.

Want to see?

Sure!

Halbhh · Apr 3, 2020

Hope1960 said:
Sure!

I'd long thought that Genesis chapter 1 is a wonderful Poem About Creation.

And it is.... But it's not only that, I've gradually realized over the last few years.

Of course, we should read it first purely with listening, in faith, for the wonderful feeling and the way it transports us. That's why we have it -- so that we will listen to this and be changed. That's the real purpose of the chapter I believe. It's meant to change us.

-------

I've had a lifelong interest in astronomy/astrophysics, so that's the way I found out what is below -- from my own curiosity and interest, over time. I didn't read how it aligned to Genesis chapter 1 from anyone, but instead realized it, to my total surprise.

After reading over 10,000 astronomy/astrophysics articles, over decades.

Not to overwhelm you with too many, here's just one of the most interesting (to me), and you can say if you want more, and if there is anything in particular you want to hear from the astrophysics/physics side of things.

Early Earth was a water world we now have found, which is exactly like the text in Genesis chapter 1.

(Here's another, newer article on it, but I've seen this first years ago)

Geologists determine early Earth was a 'water world' by studying exposed ocean crust

(Here's an older report on this finding, when the first big discovery of evidence came out in 2017:
https://phys.org/news/2017-05-earth-barren-flat-billion-years.html

And this was widely reported in newspapers:
Earth started 4.4 billion years ago as a barren water world, scientists say

or here's a popular science version of the report:
Early Earth Was Almost Entirely Underwater, With Just A Few Islands - Universe Today)

FaithT · Apr 3, 2020

Halbhh said:
I'd long thought that Genesis chapter 1 is a wonderful Poem About Creation.

And it is.... But it's not only that, I've gradually realized over the last few years.

Of course, we should read it first purely with listening, in faith, for the wonderful feeling and the way it transports us. That's why we have it -- so that we will listen to this and be changed. That's the real purpose of the chapter I believe. It's meant to change us.

-------

I've had a lifelong interest in astronomy/astrophysics, so that's the way I found out what is below -- from my own curiosity and interest, over time. I didn't read how it aligned to Genesis chapter 1 from anyone, but instead realized it, to my total surprise.

After reading over 10,000 astronomy/astrophysics articles, over decades.

Not to overwhelm you with too many, here's just one of the most interesting (to me), and you can say if you want more, and if there is anything in particular you want to hear from the astrophysics/physics side of things.

Early Earth was a water world we now have found, which is exactly like the text in Genesis chapter 1.

(Here's another, newer article on it, but I've seen this first years ago)

Geologists determine early Earth was a 'water world' by studying exposed ocean crust

(Here's an older report on this finding, when the first big discovery of evidence came out in 2017:
https://phys.org/news/2017-05-earth-barren-flat-billion-years.html

And this was widely reported in newspapers:
Earth started 4.4 billion years ago as a barren water world, scientists say

or here's a popular science version of the report:
Early Earth Was Almost Entirely Underwater, With Just A Few Islands - Universe Today)

Well our church teaches a young earth.......

FaithT · Apr 3, 2020

1) So, abiogenesis is impossible?

2) Something can’t come from nothing?

grasping the after wind · Apr 3, 2020

Hope1960 said:
So, abiogenesis is impossible?

Abiogenesis is actually irrelevant to the basic question you are asking. One needs to explain how a physical object can arise from nothingness. Life happens according to science well beyond the birth of the non living physical universe. How does a inanimate universe come into existence from zero matter? The Big Bang requires something that always was there to be there for it to happen. How life came into being is only a subset of that.

Halbhh · Apr 3, 2020

Hope1960 said:
1) So, abiogenesis is impossible?

It's possible if God made it to be possible, of course. . He made the heavens (the universe) and the Earth, and made them "very good".

FaithT · Apr 3, 2020

Daniel9v9 said:
Well, that's really impossible, because it would require us to witness and record first-hand the process of: (1) nothing becoming something (ex nihilo) by itself, (2) something inanimate becoming animate by itself, (3) something animate reproducing by itself, (4) something animate progressing from self-producing to needing a partner to reproduce by itself, and (5) for this animate being to radically change species.

There is simply no factual evidence for the above working out in a sequence, and so, it will always remain a theory.

So, it can’t happen, then?

Daniel9v9 · Apr 3, 2020

Hope1960 said:
So, it can’t happen, then?

Yeah, that’s the great irony of it. It can’t happen, so it remains a belief; a belief in that nature made itself. This is a position that cannot be proven and is essentially an ancient gnostic-philosophic notion in a modern form.

Many people in our day who hold this position criticise Christians of being unscientific and believing in something that cannot be proven with actual facts, but I would argue that they are also guilty of the same.

Furthermore, Christianity is rooted in history and is no less tangible. That is, there is no good historical reason to doubt the existence of Jesus from Nazareth, and that He was crucified and truly died, but that His body is nowhere to be found. And we can recognise that more than 500 individuals witnessed Jesus in His resurrection, many of whom suffered and died for this testimony, namely, that Jesus died for our sins and was raised again, that whoever believes in Him, may also be raised to new life.

We can gladly and confidently confess that God is real, because He walked among us on earth in the person of Jesus Christ, who is fully man and fully God. John the Evangelist makes it very clear when he witnessed to us what he saw, heard and touched: YHWH in flesh; God from eternity in bodily form.

So, as Christians, we shouldn't be shaken by popular ideas, but remain firm in the unsearchable wisdom of our Lord, who surpasses all wisdom!

FaithT · Apr 4, 2020

Daniel9v9 said:
Yeah, that’s the great irony of it. It can’t happen, so it remains a belief; a belief in that nature made itself. This is a position that cannot be proven and is essentially an ancient gnostic-philosophic notion in a modern form.

Many people in our day who hold this position criticise Christians of being unscientific and believing in something that cannot be proven with actual facts, but I would argue that they are also guilty of the same.

Furthermore, Christianity is rooted in history and is no less tangible. That is, there is no good historical reason to doubt the existence of Jesus from Nazareth, and that He was crucified and truly died, but that His body is nowhere to be found. And we can recognise that more than 500 individuals witnessed Jesus in His resurrection, many of whom suffered and died for this testimony, namely, that Jesus died for our sins and was raised again, that whoever believes in Him, may also be raised to new life.

We can gladly and confidently confess that God is real, because He walked among us on earth in the person of Jesus Christ, who is fully man and fully God. John the Evangelist makes it very clear when he witnessed to us what he saw, heard and touched: YHWH in flesh; God from eternity in bodily form.

So, as Christians, we shouldn't be shaken by popular ideas, but remain firm in the unsearchable wisdom of our Lord, who surpasses all wisdom!

Thanks, you’ve been a great help.

Lutheran POV

Well-Known Member

Is playing with his Tonka truck.

Well-Known Member

Everything You say is Life to me

†

Well-Known Member

†

Well-Known Member

Everything You say is Life to me

†

Everything You say is Life to me

Well-Known Member

Everything You say is Life to me

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

That's grasping after the wind

Everything You say is Life to me

Well-Known Member

†

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency