Saving Darwin

[gluadys]

Are you responding to my post? Can't be sure as you have not indicated and the content of you post leaves the issue ambiguous.

If you are responding to my post I would appreciate a comment on the specific issues I raised. Namely, a comment on the identity or non-indentity of "miracle" and "intervention". And a comment on the relationship of "sustaining" and "intervening".

And I notice you are again redefining the meaning of words. You equate evolution occurring naturalistically as indicating the absence of God. LOL .

No, I do not. But a good many people do. Materialists do. To them, natural causes are "evidence" of the non-existence of God. Deists do. To them natural explanations are "evidence" of the non-involvement of God. Most creationists do. To them natural explanations are "evidence" of the exclusion of God.

But to myself, as to most TEs, natural explanations of evolution or anything else are NOT evidence of the absence or non-involvement of God and we think this is an unwarranted conclusion.

My views are consistent with the published views, your views avoid the meaning of words. I defined what I meant by the Deistic view and you seem unable to comprehend. You invent a supposed dichotomy where none exists. The passive sustainer view, does not indicate the "absence" of God, only the "absence" of supernatural intervention.

You have equated the Deist view with something you call "passive sustainor" view.

I have not seen a published view of Deism that includes the latter concept.

Your view introduces a false dichotomy.

Please identify the false dichotomy and a legitimate third choice.

 

[Van]

I note with interest statements like "most TE" think this, or most turtles think that. Claims that are not substantiated seem like an effort to justify the absurd.

Here is my statement. "You equate evolution occurring naturalistically as indicating the absence of God" Some TE published positions accept that God is the passive sustainer of evolutionary processes. The "a" position I quoted.

I identified the false dichotomy, why ask for me to identify it again.

And again you say you have not seen, yet I quoted the view. What part of personal incredulity do you not understand.

You invent a supposed dichotomy where none exists. The passive sustainer view, does not indicate the "absence" of God, only the "absence" of supernatural intervention. Your view introduces a false dichotomy.

 

[gluadys]

Here is my statement. "You equate evolution occurring naturalistically as indicating the absence of God"

Do you even read what you are replying to?

Let me repeat it.


Originally Posted by Van View Post

And I notice you are again redefining the meaning of words. You equate evolution occurring naturalistically as indicating the absence of God. LOL .

No, I do not. But a good many people do. Materialists do. To them, natural causes are "evidence" of the non-existence of God. Deists do. To them natural explanations are "evidence" of the non-involvement of God. Most creationists do. To them natural explanations are "evidence" of the exclusion of God.

But to myself, as to most TEs, natural explanations of evolution or anything else are NOT evidence of the absence or non-involvement of God and we think this is an unwarranted conclusion.

Now, who claims that "evolution occurring naturalistically" indicates the absence/non-involvement/exclusion of God and who claims this is an unwarranted conclusion?

Some TE published positions accept that God is the passive sustainer of evolutionary processes. The "a" position I quoted.

Your "a" position identified a God who "stepped aside" not one who sustained natural process. How can a deity who steps aside sustain anything?

The way you use terms suggests that your a priori stance is that there are two and only two positions. Everything else is assigned to the pre-conceived two positions whether it fits there or not.

I identified the false dichotomy, why ask for me to identify it again.

In which post did you identify it?

And again you say you have not seen, yet I quoted the view.

In which post? I saw a reference to the Oxford Dictionary Definition of Deism. That definition did not suggest that Deism gave any credence to the notion of deity as a passive sustainor of natural order.

If you have posted an published version of Deism that does, please either repeat it or indicate in which post it can be found.

My reading of Deism suggests that Deists hold that the natural order does not need to be sustained by divine power and is not. The Deist deity is nothing more than a spectator of the natural world.

The passive sustainer view, does not indicate the "absence" of God, only the "absence" of supernatural intervention. Your view introduces a false dichotomy.

I have not said it does. I have said that because it does not indicate an absence of God, it is not the view of Deism, which does subscribe to the absence of God.

This is not an introduction of a false dichotomy. It is a correction to the false dichotomy which allows only for the absence of God or for supernatural intervention. A God who sustains the natural order is neither absent, nor persistently intervening.

 

[Van]

So you agree with me. Was that so hard? The Deistic view of evolution does not convey the absence of God, only the absence of active intervention.

How can a God who does not intervene supernaturally passively sustain naturalistic processes? In the usual way? Steps aside is a metaphor for allowing the processes to run their course, rather than intervening and altering their course.

Read my posts and figure it out. It is the one where I said "false dichotomy."

I see you back trying to equate deism with a deistic view? That is a false dichotomy.
This is post 84. Have I posted this before? Yes. Remember the deistic view is the "a" view where God is the passive sustainer, and does not actively intervene with miracles? Any of this ring a bell.

Folks, all the TE do is quibble over the meaning of words, change the subject, personally attack me, and offer up statements where they claim to know what most people believe. Sandbox.

God intervenes in His creation and alters events and circumstances so that His purpose and plan are fulfilled. Besides the evidence from special revelation, this truth is declared by what He has made. The Big Bang, the Origin of life, and the special creation of mankind with the ability to handle abstract thought.

 

[gluadys]

So you agree with me. Was that so hard? The Deistic view of evolution does not convey the absence of God, only the absence of active intervention.

No, I disagree with you. My reading of the Deist view is that it DOES convey the absence of God. Was that not clear from my last post?


Where is there a published definition or explanation of the Deist view that suggests God sustains natural processes?

How can a God who does not intervene supernaturally passively sustain naturalistic processes? In the usual way? Steps aside is a metaphor for allowing the processes to run their course, rather than intervening and altering their course.

And how would you describe the situation that is neither "allowing processes to run their course" nor "intervening and altering their course". i.e the position of actively sustaining natural processes in their course without altering them?

Read my posts and figure it out. It is the one where I said "false dichotomy."

Cute. I see you like trolling games.

I see you avoid conversation openers.

I see you avoid answering polite questions like "what post was that in?"

I see you back trying to equate deism with a deistic view? That is a false dichotomy.

It's a false dichotomy to equate deism with deism?

Remember the deistic view is the "a" view where God is the passive sustainer, and does not actively intervene with miracles? Any of this ring a bell.

This is what you originally set out as the "a" view.
First, either there is a God, but He wasn’t directly involved in the origin of life. He may have created the building blocks, He may have created the natural laws, He may even have created these things with the eventual emergence of life in mind, but at some point early on He stepped back and let His creation take over. He let it do what it does, whatever that is, and life eventually emerged from non-living material. This view is similar to Atheistic Evolution in that it presumes a naturalistic origin of life.

It says nothing about sustaining the natural order. It says he "let his creation take over. He let it do what it does."

Given your own original statement, then, the "a" view or "deistic view" is NOT a "passive sustainor" view. Nothing in the "a" view suggests that God is sustaining his creation.

 

[shernren]

Indeed I'm not even sure if it's all that obvious that sustaining creation's natural laws should be called "passive", and causing supernatural occurrences "active". That strikes me as a fairly anthropocentric, proud view of the universe. Oh gee, if it's something I understand, then God can't be breaking a sweat doing it.

The fact is that there are quite a few ways in which supernatural stuff might be easier than natural. After all, miracles are easy. We humans create worlds full of miracles and supernatural occurrences all the time. Realistically implementing the rules of physics on the other hand is a pain to do, even on the world's best computers.

Imagine the world is a giant simulation being run on God's supercomputer (that of course is a bad parody of the relationship between God and creation but it does prove the principle), and a certain prophet's apprentice has just dropped an axhead into the water. Elisha petitions upon God to do something and throws a piece of wood in. What does God do? Well, maybe He says to Himself "Oh, I'll turn off the gravity module for that axhead for a minute or two" and then He flips a button.

Now that module was calculating the gravitational effects of every single particle in the entire universe upon that axhead, taking into account Newton's mechanics, Einstein's general relativity, and whatever detailed theory of quantum gravity happens to be right in this universe, and it was calculating it in analog at that (infinite digits of precision)! Its input is the exact mass and location of every single mass-bearing particle in the universe, and the exact size and speed of every graviton between every single particle (if, indeed, gravitons are the right way to describe it at all). Poof! The temperature of the vast array of CPU chips plunges by 10 degrees and the supercomputer enjoys its break because modeling unrealistic, rule-breaking phenomena is a whole lot simpler.

And then the prophet's apprentice reaches out and grabs the axhead and for a moment wonders Why does it feel so light? Whereupon the supercomputer heaves a sigh and goes back to its infinite-precision computation.

Who knows, maybe miracles are the easy part of God's taking care of the universe.

 

[Van]

And how would you describe the situation that is neither "allowing processes to run their course" nor "intervening and altering their course". i.e the position of actively sustaining natural processes in their course without altering them?

I would describe this as a logical impossibility, where the meaning of words must be altered to bring it to actuality.

Folks, as you can see, this thread as deteriorated into posts playing games with no effort to explore the topic of the thread.

 

[Melethiel]

I would describe this as a logical impossibility, where the meaning of words must be altered to bring it to actuality.

Folks, as you can see, this thread as deteriorated into posts playing games with no effort to explore the topic of the thread.

Well, logical impossibility or not, that is the position of most of the TEs here. If it's not logical, so be it...it won't be the only thing in my theology which is not logical. It'll join such nice illogical doctrines like the Trinity and the Sacraments.

 

[Assyrian]

I think the problem is the real view of both TEs and deists don't fit Van's word games.

 

[shernren]

Folks, as you can see, this thread as deteriorated into posts playing games with no effort to explore the topic of the thread.

Hey, word games are important.

Words be powerful things. The church spent three centuries playing Jenga with "Christ", "man" and "God" trying to make all three of them stick to the framework of the Gospels. If they'd given up and stuck to the simple, imagination-free positions like yours, we wouldn't have the doctrine of the Incarnation today, let alone the doctrine of the Trinity and its perichoretic movement.

 

[gluadys]

I would describe this as a logical impossibility, where the meaning of words must be altered to bring it to actuality.

Folks, as you can see, this thread as deteriorated into posts playing games with no effort to explore the topic of the thread.

O we are exploring.

Is it fair to say then that as you see things nature needs no active involvement of the divinity to run its course without alteration?

Is it fair to say then that as you see things, the only conceivable reason for God to be actively involved with nature is for the purpose of altering its normal course?

 

[IndyPirate]

Still working my way through the book. I haven't had much time to read with the holidays and a short vacation earlier this month. Only on page 65 now.

Anyways, another good point that he brought up is that at the turn of the last century almost everyone accepted common descent but were skeptical about natural selection. How weird is it that it's the complete opposite now? Creationists have no problem with things like "micro-evolution" and "adaptation" but get really upset if you point out that humans are animals and are primates.

I also thought this paragraph was very insightful:

For evolution to conflict with the Bible, these ambiguities would have to resolve in a specific way that was genuinely incompatible. We can certainly select a biblical interpretation that will conflict with a particular explanation for evolution. But why would we want to do that? Absent a revelation from God commanding such a cantankerous love, there is simply no reason to do this. Blessed are the peacemakers, said Jesus, not those who go around manufacturing controversy​