God's Omnipotence

[davidk]

Neon,

I'm sorry you still don't understand what it is that I've been trying to say.

All things that have been created have their meaning given them by their creator.

God was not created, He is the Creator.

He is what gives meaning to all else.

 

Join the one which teaches Christian beliefs.

 

I don't agree with your interpretation of the Biblical chronology of creation.

 

On Dawkins: He disavows chance by adding intelligence to the mix (a plan). That does indeed do away with chance. But, he also disavows the possiblity of any intelligence, from which it is required in order to have a pre-existent plan for evolution. Hardly a convincing argument, when you disavow all of the only possibilities available.

--

Davidk

[tariki]

Joseph,

This sounds like a rerun.

 

It's not that I couldn't find meaning in any unanswered questions, they all were answered in one form or another. It's that, I found no meaning in the insufficiency of the answers I was being given.

I didn't give up and settle, but I did surrender, and it was to what provides the sufficient answers for being, for morality, and for knowledge.

What I did give up on was the silence. Silence provides nothing, other than a need to look elsewhere.

--

Davidk

David,

 

Whatever Joseph may think of this, I can only say that I understand "silence" in a way different from yourself. For me, and I admit to only limited experience of this - yet experience none the less - it is the silence of the demands of the "false self"/ego that seeks a certain autonomy of choice.

 

The speech of God is silence.......everything else is fiction, half-hiding the truth it tries to reveal.......we are travellers from the half-world of language into solitude and infinity.....

 

The true solutions are not those which we force upon life in accordance with our theories, but those which life itself provides for those who dispose themselves to receive the truth.

 

Yes, I rely on Merton a lot.........

 

As I understand you david, and I may be wrong, you experienced a silence when your "self" (false or not!) still sought answers/theories?

 

There seems to me, in silence, a fecundity that brings forth fruit of itself

 

Anyway,

all the best

 

I now await the rerun!

[Neon Genesis]

Neon,

 

On Dawkins: He disavows chance by adding intelligence to the mix (a plan). That does indeed do away with chance. But, he also disavows the possiblity of any intelligence, from which it is required in order to have a pre-existent plan for evolution. Hardly a convincing argument, when you disavow all of the only possibilities available.

--

Davidk

Creationists are setting up a false dichotomy between evolution and chance. They argue that the theory of evolution claims we came about by random chance, but it is natural selection which explains how the process of evolution is not chance. It would be like arguing that gravity is just a theory. The force which pulls us down isn't gravity but intelligent falling and if God didn't create intelligent falling, then gravity is just chance yet it's gravity which is the explanation. I don't know any creationist who would make this argument against gravity because virtually all creationists accept that gravity is the explanation for why we don't fall and that gravity is not chance. For some reason, they can't do the same for evolution.

 

David,

 

Whatever Joseph may think of this, I can only say that I understand "silence" in a way different from yourself. For me, and I admit to only limited experience of this - yet experience none the less - it is the silence of the demands of the "false self"/ego that seeks a certain autonomy of choice.

 

The speech of God is silence.......everything else is fiction, half-hiding the truth it tries to reveal.......we are travellers from the half-world of language into solitude and infinity.....

When I first deconverted from fundamentalist Christianity, I went through a lot of emotional turmoil where I was certain God was going to send me to hell for all eternity because of my apostasy. The certainty which Christianity taught me to have was no comfort for me then because I was certain God hated me for doubting my beliefs. During this phase, I came to three different conclusions as possibilities as to why God wasn't answering my prayers and revealing how I can save myself from hell. I figured that either God was an evil god who desired to torture and punish people. Or God was a loving god who didn't care about whether or not we worshiped him. Or my last conclusion was that God didn't exist. If the first conclusion was true, I didn't want anything to do with such a hateful and tyrannical god and I decided I would rather go to hell than worship such a wicked being, so option one was out of the question. I then figured that if option two was correct, then God wouldn't care if I stopped believing in him and it was ok for me to go with option three. After I accepted that I no longer believed in God, for a long time, I hated all religion. I was absolutely certain that all religion was evil and that all religious people were either delusional or at the least ignorant. I wasn't particularly consumed with anger all the time, but I didn't think religion was a good thing for the world, either and I thought society would be better off if there was no religion. I knew there were nice Christians out there and I didn't hate them but I thought liberals were just wishy washy cherry pickers who were ignoring the bible and weren't real believers like the fundamentalists were and I considered them part of the problem. But then one of my online friends who is a secular humanist linked me to a video where Bishop Spong was talking about the immoral texts of the bible. Right then and there I was really impressed with Spong's honesty and humility and what he said made so much sense to me. I started reading more progressive authors and learning about different conceptions of God than the fundamentalist god I believed in.

 

While I still don't think any of us can know for certain there is a supernatural god out there, I feel like through learning more about progressive Christianity and what they actually believe and teach, I've realized that I still don't know everything and through this understanding of not knowing everything, I felt a burden lifted off of me that I no longer have to hate religious people anymore much like the burden I felt lifted off of me when I realized the god I grew up believing in was wrong. So for me, I've also found I feel the most comfort during the times of my life where I've realized I don't have all the answers after all and there are other ways of seeing the world than mine. I feel a great deal of burden lifted from me knowing now that I no longer have to fear an angry god in the sky looking over my shoulder all the time but I also feel a burden lifted knowing I don't have to hate all religious people either. If there is any divine inspiration involved with the formation of the bible, I think what it teaches us is not the mind of God, but that we don't know the mind of God. When Job demanded an audience with God to demand to know why he suffered so much, Job didn't actually learn anything new from his experience with God. What he learned was that he didn't know everything and I think that's the most valuable lesson the scriptures have to teach us which so many Christians end up missing.

[minsocal]

Whitehead (1929/1978), “ ... just as physical feelings are haunted by the vague insistence of causality, so the higher intellectual feelings are haunted by the vague insistence of another order, where there is no unrest, no travel, no shipwreck: ‘There shall be no more sea.’”

[davidk]

Derek,

 

Searching for answers will indoubtedly find some silence, but the searching doesn't cause it.

 

Silence is no answer to a question. If silence were all we can expect, then the universe, with man and all his aspirations, is totally silent for any real meaning.

--

 

I think we have reasoned together, that what is there provides the evidence for "those who dispose themselves to receive the truth". We also seem to have found that we can force/find no final answer for what is when beginning only from ourselves or from any other finite source.

Silence will always be insufficient when it comes to having a final answer. If the infinite were silent, we would have no meaning for ourselves and morality; nor could there be any confidence to know or hope for anything.

 

We need an infinite, non-silent, reference point if we are to know and be confident of any real meaning.

---

 

Neon,

"... it is natural selection which explains how the process of evolution is not chance."- Neon

 

Who is selecting in Natural Selection? It is nature. Totally by chance- accidents; because there is no plan.

 

If we say nature has a plan, then we've introduced something that nature is incapable of having on it's own accord.

 

If we introduce God as the intelligence required to be behind a plan and the processes to complete it, then it is no longer Nature that has selected anything, and it cannot rightly be called Natural Selection, it would be called God Selection, more commonly known as- Creation.

 

Natural Selection is in lieu of God creating.

-

 

I can't help but cry for you if you were taught that you should be "..certain God hated me for doubting my beliefs." That could be no further from the truth, it's a lie. By not having the truth at that point, it's no wonder you came to think you had to choose between the three conclusions you thought you were left with.

-

 

It's quite easy for us to find fault in some people who, we think, believe they know everything. But that's usually remarks made when it's us that think we know everything to a degeree greater than the person we're disgreeing with. This is typical of Mankind's disposition in general, rather than humility.

 

But, that's not to say we can't know the truth about anything. We just can't know all of it, exhaustively, completely, about everything, or anything. We can know of things truly, if not totally. Our understanding and explanations of the infinite will always be limited by our finiteness, but they can be nonetheless true.

--

Davidk

[tariki]

Derek,

 

Searching for answers will indoubtedly find some silence, but the searching doesn't cause it.

 

Silence is no answer to a question. If silence were all we can expect, then the universe, with man and all his aspirations, is totally silent for any real meaning.

--

 

I think we have reasoned together, that what is there provides the evidence for "those who dispose themselves to receive the truth". We also seem to have found that we can force/find no final answer for what is when beginning only from ourselves or from any other finite source.

Silence will always be insufficient when it comes to having a final answer. If the infinite were silent, we would have no meaning for ourselves and morality; nor could there be any confidence to know or hope for anything.

 

We need an infinite, non-silent, reference point if we are to know and be confident of any real meaning.

---

 

 

 

david,

 

I spoke of awaiting the rerun, and so it is, so I cut it short.

 

We understand and experience "silence" differently.

 

So be it.

 

All the best

Derek

[Neon Genesis]

Derek,

 

 

 

If we say nature has a plan, then we've introduced something that nature is incapable of having on it's own accord.

 

If we introduce God as the intelligence required to be behind a plan and the processes to complete it, then it is no longer Nature that has selected anything, and it cannot rightly be called Natural Selection, it would be called God Selection, more commonly known as- Creation.

 

Natural Selection is in lieu of God creating.

 

Davidk

Again, you're setting up a false dichotomy between evolution and creationism by presuming it all comes down to either unguided natural selection by chance or a literal creationism yet you fail to explain why God can't create evolution or how evolution created by God is chance. You simply assert the same line over and over again but repeating the same creationist talking points isn't going to convince anyone of your false dichotomy if you fail to explain why God and evolution are incompatible. Simply saying over and over again that evolution is chance which is why it can't be created God does not explain how evolution is not chance if it's created by God.

[JosephM]

If we say nature has a plan, then we've introduced something that nature is incapable of having on it's own accord.

 

If we introduce God as the intelligence required to be behind a plan and the processes to complete it, then it is no longer Nature that has selected anything, and it cannot rightly be called Natural Selection, it would be called God Selection, more commonly known as- Creation.

 

Natural Selection is in lieu of God creating.

 

Davidk

 

You trap yourself in that statement. If God is the intelligence required to be behind a plan and the process to complete it, for you, as part of creation, to select things (choice), you indeed must say that it cannot rightly be called choice because it would be God selection according to God's plan. How then could mankind have any plan for himself or their be man selection? Within that paradox lies the true understanding and it is found in "silence" (Spirit without words) which you, as Derek says, seem to experience differently.

 

Just my 2 cents,

Joseph

[Hornet]

Again, you're setting up a false dichotomy between evolution and creationism by presuming it all comes down to either unguided natural selection by chance or a literal creationism yet you fail to explain why God can't create evolution or how evolution created by God is chance. You simply assert the same line over and over again but repeating the same creationist talking points isn't going to convince anyone of your false dichotomy if you fail to explain why God and evolution are incompatible. Simply saying over and over again that evolution is chance which is why it can't be created God does not explain how evolution is not chance if it's created by God.

 

The theory of evolution is not compatible with a literal reading of Genesis. According to a literal reading of Genesis, God did not use evolution to create life. However, if you don't believe in a literal reading of Genesis or if you believe in a god that is not the God of Christianity, then accepting evolution and believing in god would be compatible with each other.

[JosephM]

The theory of evolution is not compatible with a literal reading of Genesis. According to a literal reading of Genesis, God did not use evolution to create life. However, if you don't believe in a literal reading of Genesis or if you believe in a god that is not the God of Christianity, then accepting evolution and believing in god would be compatible with each other.

 

 

Hornet,

 

Many here may agree that evolution is not compatible with a literal reading of Genesis. Perhaps it is your opinion that Genesis must be read literally. That is an acceptable view. One could debate if they feel your view is in error if they liked, which could then make the point that it is possible that God did use evolution. However, it is unacceptable here to insist or state that if a persons opinion/view does not agree with you or your interpretation that they are not worshipping God but rather "a god that is not the God of Christianity". Please read our guidelines here.

 

While the point in question (Evolution being compatible with creation) is debatable. Whether one is Christian or not or worshipping God because of a particular view held is not. It serves no useful purpose on this forum to make such statements.

 

JosephM (as Moderator)

[davidk]

This portion of the post referring to Hornets response was deleted at the suggestion of Davidk after pointing out its inappropriateness. The next post was a duplicate post deleted in its entirety --

by JosephM as moderator

 

You trap yourself in that statement.

---

Just my 2 cents,

Joseph

 

Joseph,

Only if it's taken out of context, Creation v. Natural Selection.

 

--

 

Neon,

First it was that: "Creationists are setting up a false dichotomy between evolution and chance."; then it is, "Again, you're setting up a false dichotomy between evolution and creationism...".

First, there is no dichotomy between evolution and chance, and that is the Creationist's view.

Second, natural selection (aka: evolution) and creation are polar opposites. Any concept pretending they can be the same is the false assumption. Dawkins agrees.

Without intelligence being introduced into the equation, even Dawkins understands he's up against the wall on this. So, this is why he assigns natural selection (rather than God) to be the intelligent agent (interesting leap, but fails under scrutiny).

 

Dawkins explains quite clearly that God and evolution don't mix. So, it apears Dawkins and I have the same talking points here.

---

Davidk

[Hornet]

This portion of the post referring to Hornets response was deleted at the suggestion of Davidk after pointing out its inappropriateness. The next post was a duplicate post deleted in its entirety --

by JosephM as moderator

 

 

Joseph,

Only if it's taken out of context, Creation v. Natural Selection.

 

--

 

Neon,

First it was that: "Creationists are setting up a false dichotomy between evolution and chance."; then it is, "Again, you're setting up a false dichotomy between evolution and creationism...".

First, there is no dichotomy between evolution and chance, and that is the Creationist's view.

Second, natural selection (aka: evolution) and creation are polar opposites. Any concept pretending they can be the same is the false assumption. Dawkins agrees.

Without intelligence being introduced into the equation, even Dawkins understands he's up against the wall on this. So, this is why he assigns natural selection (rather than God) to be the intelligent agent (interesting leap, but fails under scrutiny).

 

Dawkins explains quite clearly that God and evolution don't mix. So, it apears Dawkins and I have the same talking points here.

---

Davidk

 

One can accept natural selection without accepting evolution. Natural selection has to do with whether or not certain organisms will survive in their environment. The ones that can adapt to their environment will survive, but the ones that cannot adapt to their environment will not survive. Creationists believe that animals cannot change outside the limits of their own kind. Just because an animal can adapt to its environment does not mean that it changes outside the limits of its kind.

[minsocal]

Although Dawkins has attracted much attention concerning his claims about evolution, he is not without critics in his own field:

 

"A long-standing dispute in evolutionary biology concerns the levels at which selection can occur (Brandon 1996, Keller 1999, Godfrey-Smith and Kerr 2001, Okasha 2004). As it turns out, there is no one process termed “selection.” Instead there are two processes—“replication” and “environmental interaction”. Some authors see this dispute as concerning the levels at which replication can take place. Dawkins argues that replication in biological evolution occurs exclusively at the level of the genetic material. Hence, he is a gene replicationist. Other authors take the levels of selection dispute to concern environmental interaction and insist that environmental interaction can take place at a variety of levels from single genes, cells and organisms to colonies, demes and possibly entire species. Organisms certainly interact with their environments in ways that bias the transmission of their genes, but then so do entities that are both less inclusive than entire organisms (e.g., ###### cells) and more inclusive (e.g., beehives)."

 

http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/replication/

 

It seems to me that some people make a distinction between a belief in God versus beliefs about God.

[davidk]

Natural Selection merely theorizes there is a selection process through which certain accidents of nature survive, while others don't. There is no real selection process here in this process known as Natural Selection. Natural Selection insinuates there is a thinking, rational choice made by nature. However, nature is only mass, motion, and energy; and these things do not, nor cannot, think. They can only fly around, thoughtlessly banging into other things.

This forms the basis for Evolution, where, given enough time, via these random accidents, nature will choose to create, not only everything else that exists, including man and his aspirations, but can create itself- from nothing.

 

These concepts of intelligent accidents try to explain what exists, in lieu of God.

 

An omnipotent creator, God, provides the sufficient explanation of what actually exists, in its present form.

 

 

Do you believe in that about Him?

[glintofpewter]

I was not going to participate in this thread any more but somethings annoy me.

 

Natural Selection merely theorizes . . .

a misuse of the word "theory" in science.(Theory is used differently in philosophy and in the vernacular.)

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

Hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was ...

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Natural Selection insinuates there is a thinking, rational choice made by nature.

No, I don't think it does. Nature is capable of organizing itself into complex entities from simpler components without preceding design and with no "insinuation" of meaning or thinking. Nature self-organizes.

 

from wikipedia

 

Self-organization is the process where a structure or pattern appears in a system without a central authority or external element imposing it. This globally coherent pattern appears from the local interaction of the elements that makes up the system, thus the organization is achieved in a way that is parallel (all the elements act at the same time) and distributed (no element is a coordinator).

 

examples

 

1. spontaneous folding of proteins

2. formation of lipid bilayer membranes

3. homeostasis (the self-maintaining nature of systems from the cell to the whole organism)

4. pattern formation and morphogenesis, or how the living organism develops and grows.

5. the coordination of human movement,

6. the creation of structures by social animals, such as social insects (bees, ants, termites), and many mammals

7. flocking behaviour (such as the formation of flocks by birds, schools of fish, etc.)

8. the origin of life itself from self-organizing chemical systems

and the brain may have organized itself into providing spiritual experiences

 

 

Take Care

 

Dutch

[glintofpewter]

Let me be more precise.

 

Natural Selection merely theorizes . . .

 

Do you agree with the Theory of Evolution or do you have results achieved by the scientific method that call into question the theory?

 

Dutch

[glintofpewter]

Experiment

 

Find a group of people who think that the universe is the result of an a-rational and godless evolution. Ask them if they experience despair more than the average population. If they do then your hypothesis that the only response to an a-rational and godless evolution which lacks any meaning can only lead to despair is supported. If they don't then your hypothesis is called into question.

 

Take Care

 

Dutch

[JosephM]

My comment on Evolution would be...

 

Personally, all i can say is, thank God for Evolution. I do not see evolution in lieu of God as some might claim.

 

Also on despair as the dictionary defines.....

de·spair (d-spâr) intr.v. de·spaired, de·spair·ing, de·spairs

1. To lose all hope:

2. To be overcome by a sense of futility or defeat.

n.

1. Complete loss of hope.

 

I must honestly admit or testify that in this lifetime i have not known despair before or after realizing the presence of God. I have experienced a deep dissatisfaction with the way things were at times in my life but hope was always present as a catalyst to move on. Meaning in life, in my view, can be present whether we acknowledge the existence of God or not. To view it otherwise, seems to me, in my experience only, to be a limited and exclusive perception.

 

Joseph

[Neon Genesis]

 

Dawkins explains quite clearly that God and evolution don't mix. So, it apears Dawkins and I have the same talking points here.

---

Davidk

There are other evolutionist scientists who disagree with you and Dawkins. Francis Collins and Ken Miller are both Christian scientists who accept evolution and believe in God. The official position of the Catholic church is that evolution is compatible with theism.

[JosephM]

In support of Neon's position from Wikipedia i offer the following...

 

Theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism are similar concepts that assert that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life.

 

Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation. Theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who reject the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science – that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict. In describing early proponents of this viewpoint, it is sometimes described as Christian Darwinism

 

and ....

 

Evolution contradicts a literalistic interpretation of Genesis; however, according to Roman Catholicism and most contemporary Protestant Churches, biblical literalism in the creation account is not mandatory. Christians have considered allegorical interpretations of Genesis since long before the development of Darwin's theory of evolution, or Hutton's principle of uniformitarianism.

 

and ....

 

 

 

Many Christian denominations support or accept theistic evolution. For example, on 12 February 2006, the 197th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth was commemorated by "Evolution Sunday" where the message that followers of Christ do not have to choose between biblical stories of creation and evolution was taught in classes and sermons at many Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Congregationalist, United Church of Christ, Baptist and community churches.^[14]

 

and ....

 

 

Additionally, the National Council of Churches USA has issued a teaching resource to "assist people of faith who experience no conflict between science and their faith and who embrace science as one way of appreciating the beauty and complexity of God's creation." This resource cites the Episcopal Church, according to whom the stories of creation in Genesis "should not be understood as historical and scientific accounts of origins but as proclamations of basic theological truths about creation."^[15]

 

 

Joseph

[minsocal]

Thank you Neon and Joseph for the entry into a different line of thought.

 

History is sometimes fickle in its selectivity concerning facts. Long before Darwin, there was an influential view that helped some accept evolution. It comes from Spinoza who was, in turn, deeply influenced by the teachings of Jesus:

 

"[People] find—both in themselves and outside themselves—many means that are very helpful in seeking their own advantage, e.g., eyes for seeing, teeth for chewing, plants and animals for food, the sun for light, the sea for supporting fish … Hence, they consider all natural things as means to their own advantage. And knowing that they had found these means, not provided them for themselves, they had reason to believe that there was someone else who had prepared those means for their use. For after they considered things as means, they could not believe that the things had made themselves; but from the means they were accustomed to prepare for themselves, they had to infer that there was a ruler, or a number of rulers of nature, endowed with human freedom, who had taken care of all things for them, and made all things for their use.

 

And since they had never heard anything about the temperament of these rulers, they had to judge it from their own. Hence, they maintained that the Gods direct all things for the use of men in order to bind men to them and be held by men in the highest honor. So it has happened that each of them has thought up from his own temperament different ways of worshipping God, so that God might love them above all the rest, and direct the whole of Nature according to the needs of their blind desire and insatiable greed. Thus this prejudice was changed into superstition, and struck deep roots in their minds. (I, Appendix)"

[Neon Genesis]

The passage of time has revealed to everyone the truths that I previously set forth; and, together with the truth of the facts, there has come to light the great difference in attitude between those who simply and dispassionately refused to admit the discoveries to be true, and those who combined with their incredulity some reckless passion of their own. Men who were well grounded in astronomical and physical science were persuaded as soon as they received my first message. There were others who denied them or remained in doubt only because of their novel and unexpected character, and because they had not yet had the opportunity to see for themselves. These men have by degrees come to be satisfied. But some, besides allegiance to their original error, possess I know not what fanciful interest in remaining hostile not so much toward the things in question as toward their discoverer. No longer being able to deny them, these men now take refuge in obstinate silence, but being more than ever exasperated by that which has pacified and quieted other men, they divert their thoughts to other fancies and seek new ways to damage me. … To this end they make a shield of their hypocritical zeal for religion. They go about invoking the Bible, which they would have minister to their deceitful purposes. Contrary to the sense of the Bible and the intention of the holy Fathers, if I am not mistaken, they would extend such authorities until even in purely physical matters — where faith is not involved — they would have us altogether abandon reason and the evidence of our senses in favor of some biblical passage, though under the surface meaning of its words this passage may contain a different sense. -Galileo Galilei

[davidk]

Self-organization is the process where a structure or pattern appears in a system without a central authority or external element imposing it. This globally coherent pattern appears from the local interaction of the elements that makes up the system, thus the organization is achieved in a way that is parallel (all the elements act at the same time) and distributed (no element is a coordinator).

Thank you, Dutch- for this excellent post in supporting the argument that the concepts of natural selection and evolution are genuinely in lieu of a creator God.

--

 

"I was not going to participate in this thread any more but somethings annoy me.

Natural Selection merely theorizes . . .

a misuse of the word "theory" in science."- Dutch

theorize v ; to form a theory; something stated (postulated) as a step in the formulation of a theory.

 

I considered your having become annoyed by what I assumed was 'my' misuse of the word theory. If you had, the only conclusion I could draw was that you had become annoyed, but only by an inadvertent misreading of the post. I don't follow your objection.

--

 

"Natural Selection insinuates there is a thinking, rational choice made by nature.

No, I don't think it does. Nature is capable of organizing itself into complex entities from simpler components without preceding design and with no "insinuation" of meaning or thinking. Nature self-organizes."- Dutch

I think it would be safe to assume that you think man is part of this self-organizing nature. If this self-organized nature doesn't think, then how can you possibly suppose that we do?

--

 

"... and the brain may have organized itself into providing spiritual experiences"- Dutch

 

Dutch, your closing statement appears to say that anything we consider to be a spiritual experience may only be an invention of the mind.

--

 

scientific method n ; the principle and procedures used in the systematic pursuit of intersubjectively accessible knowledge and involving as necessary conditions the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and if possible experiment, the formulation of hypotheses, and the testing and confirmation of the hypotheses formulated.

 

"Do you agree with the Theory of Evolution or do you have results achieved by the scientific method that call into question the theory?"- Dutch

The Theory of Evolution begins with- nothing. The Scientific Method reveals there is no sustainable argument for beginning from nothing.

-

Davidk

[Neon Genesis]

How does evolution begin with nothing if it was created by God?

[JosephM]

Self-organization is the process where a structure or pattern appears in a system without a central authority or external element imposing it. This globally coherent pattern appears from the local interaction of the elements that makes up the system, thus the organization is achieved in a way that is parallel (all the elements act at the same time) and distributed (no element is a coordinator).

Thank you, Dutch- for this excellent post in supporting the argument that the concepts of natural selection and evolution are genuinely in lieu of a creator God.

 

Davidk,

 

Concerning Dutch's statement, perhaps you are seeing what is not there or are not understanding the statement made as others might be? Creation and God are One. God is not an external element but rather an intrinsic whole. In God everything moves and has its being. In my view, one can't define God as external or like man because the reality of God encompasses the infinite whole of all that exists in and out of form. Your argument that evolution is in lieu of God is solely your opinion and is not supported by Dutch's statement except perhaps according to your own mind perception of his statement. However, lets let Dutch clarify for himself. One of us seems to be grasping at straws to attempt to prove his point. Whether it is myself or you is open to individuals to decide for themselves. However your insistence that Evolution has to be in lieu of God is a concept that is not shared by the majority of posters here and the evidence presented from WIKIPEDIA and to claim such as you have, seems to show you in my view are not trying to understand or checking out the sources presented as evidence of how other Christian denominations see it.

 

In short if i say that i believe in God and evolution because it is part of the creation process and is compatible and you believe they are not compatible, then obviously your understanding of evolution and God is perhaps different. That is personally acceptable to me and we can agree that we see things differently.

 

Peace and Love in Christ,

Joseph