God's Omnipotence

[glintofpewter]

Theorizing and the Scientific Method

 

When a doctor is considering treatment for an ill patient, the doctor reviews his knowledge, his experience and perhaps resources in theorizing or speculating about a diagnosis and treatment. The doctor is looking at facts about different diseases and treatment. This process is correctly called theorizing or making an educated guess. Theorizing in the speculative sense is, I believe, also used in philosophy. The "theorizing" of many scientists have led to testable hypotheses. Many hypotheses failed to be proved. A few found support. The Theory of Evolution is the result of all this hypothesis testing, but the Theory of Evolution does not "merely theorize" anything. Evolution is "true in fact and theory." I feel it is careless to say that Evolution "theorizes", thus suggesting that it is not foundational to an understanding to life and universe. We become less critical thinkers when we do.

 

I wondered where you got your convoluted and coded definition of the scientific method From another part of that same website -

 

The adequacy of scientific explanations of origins depends on an analysis of competing

possibilities. Origins explanations use a form of abductive reasoning that produces competing

Historical Hypotheses, that lead to an inference to the best current explanation rather than to an

explanation that is logically compelled by experimental confirmation. Due to inherent limitations on

the experimental validation of Historical Hypotheses, testing requires rigorous competition between

alternative hypotheses so that their relative strengths and plausibilities may be compared. While

competition among multiple hypotheses decreases subjectivity, it may nevertheless result in no

adequate current explanation.

 

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf

so that their relative strengths and plausibilities may be compared - code for "Is Intelligent Design better than evolution?"

 

How about a simple definition. One that is generally accepted. Notice that there is no attempt introduce bias. Notice that if the religious conservatives are trully interested in discovering God's creation the scientific method would seem to be a divine gift as a means of keeping bias and preconceptions and agendas out.

Introduction to the Scientific Method

 

The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.

 

Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.

I. The scientific method has four steps

 

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

 

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

 

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

 

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

 

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

1. 
    
   
2. From the intelligent design site: testing requires rigorous competition between alternative hypotheses so that their relative strengths and plausibilities may be compared.
    
   
3. From the simple outline above: theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory
   

 

Disprove evolution. Show me the observations. Show me the data. Show me the tested hypotheses. This is not theology. It is not about saying that Galileo's ideas were not Scriptural. It is about discovering God's creation - and let us behold the wonder of it all!!

 

In summary, you can theorize your way to hypotheses; you can test hypotheses on your way to a theory but a theory does not theorize.

 

Evolution and God are not exclusive unless our view of God is limited.

 

Intelligence, Rationality and Evolution

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

 

No I don't think it does.

 

For change over time to occur neither intelligence nor rationality nor choice is required. Nature and evolution are not in lieu of God; they don't replace God; they don't deny God. It is humans who decided that God reflects our best attritubutes such as intelligence and rational. That is a huge assumption - that the transcendent ineffable God can be limited by our understanding of "intelligence" and "rationality." A verse or two from the later part of Job would go nicely here. The change that takes place in nature over time, other wise known as evolution is a-rational, and a-intelligent. There is no meaning in "Natural Selection insinuates there is a thinking, rational choice made by nature."

 

"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 suppose we do?"

 

Ever increasing complexity arises out of simpler components and processes. There are bacteria that signal each other with two different molecules. The first molecule is issued or received to indicate bacteria which are the same strain (immediate family) are nearby. This signal enables the bacteria concentrate at an infection and make matters worse. The second molecule indicate more distant relatives, information that may also be helpful.

 

The presence of any living organism does not indicate a plan laid out ahead of time. There is no meaning in a dog's or cat's or elephant's or whale's existence. They are not the result of a plan. They are the participants in a process, a process in which their existence affects the existence of all their surroundings and all living creatures. But there was not a plan; there is an a-rational, a-intelligent impulse - God yearning to know God's self. We are God's way of God learning about God's self, we are the way the Cosmos learns about it's self. We are totally other to God. Not puppets. Not broken creatures. Not the source of a debt that must be paid. That does not make God any less. But it allows God to free of our preconceptions of how the universe is coming into being, that God could only be rational, intelligent. I think neither of those words apply to God in any way we would understand. In a sense our evolution was out of God's hands. God relates to God's creation as it evolves.

 

Where I think we are missing each other is the distinction between where is creation coming from (origins Science if you will) and where is creation going. You believe that it has to start with a plan, a rational, intelligent, intent. I don't. We can start with nothing, from nothing without meaning and end up with something meaningful. Later we may realize meaning wasn't as important as it was cracked up to be. Randomly we may have acquired that part of the brain that allows us to experience the Divine. Tests suggest that 50% of us are not predisposed to believe in God.(Dawkins ) It is genetic. Why do we care whether it is God's plan or God's chaos. Do we have any less responsiblity to be ethical, moral and to live in response to Jesus. Why should we? Because we care. I would think that is enough unless we seek the oppression that was a corruption of Ezra's and Nehemiah's efforts to strengthen a small group for a large task.

 

Randomness and God

 

I have probably already made this point. Does God prefer plan over randomness, a-rational over rational, a-intelligent over intelligent, not-green over green, non-human over human, meaning over non-meaning? "Do some of these categories apply to God and others not? As Papa says irrationally to the serial killer, the abducted child, or the grieving father, the earthquake, the flood, the terrorist, and the priest. "I am especially fond of you."

 

Take Care

 

Dutch

[minsocal]

“These two classes of men are always upon the earth ... Religion is an endeavor to reconcile the two.”

 

William Blake

[davidk]

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

If God created evolution, He would, therefore, be the guiding force behind Evolution. There would be nothing you could call- "Natural Selection". Evolutionists, however, insist Natural Selection is the guiding force behind all that exists.

--

 

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

As I understand you, you believe all is God ("Creation and God are One"). That everything is God.

In that, there is no individual you. There is no need for you. Nor would there be any of us, as individuals, to have our own mind. There is no need for a creation, for diversity, nor for any physical processes at all. Their existence would accomplish nothing, because there would be no need, because no individual anything could exist.

 

Yet, you still call what is there- Creation, and still insist we have or own minds.

--

 

Dear Dutch, I'd like to respond to you lengthy post. But time is short for now.

Until then...

--

Davidk

[JosephM]

Davidk said...

As I understand you, you believe all is God ("Creation and God are One"). That everything is God.

In that, there is no individual you. There is no need for you. Nor would there be any of us, as individuals, to have our own mind. There is no need for a creation, for diversity, nor for any physical processes at all. Their existence would accomplish nothing, because there would be no need, because no individual anything could exist.

 

Yet, you still call what is there- Creation, and still insist we have or own minds.

--

 

Perhaps you are reading my words but are perceiving them in your own light? There is indeed an individual you that is part of what we know as creation. That "you" lives and dies because it is created with a beginning and ending. That which is the essence of that creation and gives it life is unborn and eternally One. Jesus understood well when he said "I and my father are One" and he prayed that "you" might be One even as he was One. It seems to me, when that is experienced your statements above might go away and no explanation of mine might be necessary.

 

Peace,

Joseph

[minsocal]

Progressive thought, beginning perhaps with Spinoza, takes reality first as a whole and the whole cannot be rendered into "nothing more" than its parts. In some sense, reality consists of both God and nature, good and evil, right and wrong, up and down, black and white, etc. Thus, progressive thought tends to reject dualisms of most kinds, including mind-body dualism (Process Theology). What is gained? Seen in this fashion, progressive thought replicates Kant and his "Copernican Revolution" where rationalism joins with empricism and creates a whole, a whole that is possibly greater than the sum of its parts.

 

As far as humans are concerned, part-whole distinction holds. We are individual organisms,true. We are social beings, equally true. Perceiving reality is much like a figure-ground gestalt. To see the individual human, there must still be a background against which the individual is cast. To see the whole is to do a gestalt-switch and bring the background to the foreground, and so on.

 

There are different views of wholism. One variation holds that the sum of the parts can never equal the whole. In effect, the parts and the whole do not exhaust reality. I tend to hold this perspective. The mystery, for me, is in the formula: God + Nature + on-going Creation where the results of on-going Creation represent the Unkown. The Whole is not yet known, individually, socially, or comologically. God, being part of the Whole from "the beginning" can not be extruded.

[Tea]

[/size][/font]

 

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.

 

I think part of the problem with the question of omnipotence vanishes when you take this view, or that of Paul Tillich who speaks of God as "the ground of being", which is what I believe in. To my mind, God is not a person, that is, a human-being-type of entity where action is mostly separate from being. If God is the ground of being, then there is absolutely NO need for evolution to be separate from the action of God.

 

Because when you say "God created", by what action did God accomplish it? Was it by pointing a finger? (But God doesn't have fingers.) Was it by physically building? (God is not physical and limited to human, physical methods.) It would seem that evolution is in fact a very good means of creation, particularly if the building blocks are his blocks.

 

Joke: Scientists have learned to create life in the laboratory. They take a little dirt, spit on it, expose it to heat, and do a bunch of other things, and—presto!—life! One scientist is then delegated to go tell God that he isn't needed any longer, as humans can do very nicely for themselves, thank you. The delegated scientist goes and does so. God says, "Oh, OK. I'll be happy to withdraw, then. But first, before I go, can I see how you create life?" The scientist scoops up some dirt. As he's preparing to spit on it, God interrupts him. "OH no. Get your own dirt!"

 

I find this both funny and profound.

[davidk]

"I wondered where you got your convoluted and coded definition of the scientific method From another part of that same website-" - glintofpewter

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I've never been to the website you linked.

 

My biased, coded, convoluted, and agenda ridden source? Well, you may have you heard of it before. It's a Merriam-Webster publication, commonly known as - Webster's International Dictionary.

 

Very unreliable.

-

What I actually said was "Natural Selection merely theorizes..." Now, if you believe Natural Selection is synonomous with Evolution, then you may have an issue to raise. However, on most of your post actually concerning 'theory', any disagreements I have seem trivial.

Also, see my second comment to Joseph below.

 

You seem certain that everything can come from nothing. Unfortunately, there is no argument out there to sustain this.

 

Consistent with nature being self-organizing without God's intelligent direction, you have rightly concluded that there is no meaning to any living organisms existence; and thusly this concludes that there is no meaning in man's existence.

 

Papa has to introduce a rational argument for his irrational statement. As soon as you introduce rationality to explain the irrational, irrationality ceases to exist. It's much like chaos. If it were all chaos, there could be no order. And as soon as you introduce ANY order, chaos ceases to exist.

 

Since the Universe does have order, it is rational; a rational universe is created only by what is already rational. Only something rational can create something that is orderly.

 

I don't think its necessarily the case of God's prefering an intelligent and rational plan. It's simply that for there to be a creation, there are no other means.

 

Perhaps I may be misreading you. Are you attributing man to be the source of intelligence on earth?

 

"We are totally other to God." I think in some sense I agree. Man, being a part of finite nature, are separate entities from an infinite God; yet, by being created by Him, we have a unity with nature. But man's unity with God is peculiar because man was created in God's image, and so we have a personal unity with Him that nature does not.

---

 

"There is indeed an individual you that is part of what we know as creation."- JosephM

Then God and creation cannot be One entity.

If everything were One:

There would be only unity with no diversity.

There would simply be no reason for creation to exist.

There would be nothing you could call individual. An individual is a distinct and separate entity.

-

"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."

Dutch's statement discusses very clearly a self organizing ability without any seperate controlling authority, element, or coordinator. If God created it, He would be the organizer, the central authority, and the external imposing element.

-

"That which is the essence of that creation and gives it life is unborn and eternally One."

This further seems to conflict us. What do you mean by "That"?

That is the essence of that creation? I can't follow your "that's" to know your meaning.

When using the term 'essence', what are you defining the final nature of all of creation to be? Man is not made up of God, but is peculiarly made by God. This is the direction on how to answer for the diversity, and not just the unity, in the universe.

-

"Jesus understood well when he said 'I and my father are One' and he prayed that 'you' might be One even as he was One."

'Might' (or 'may') is hardly definitive.

Anyway, when Jesus speaks of those "who believe in Me" (that's not implied by Jesus to be everyone) being one, as He and the Father are One, it is from His prayer that all believers may all be one (united) together as Jesus and the Father are one (united) together.

Jesus only said He was one with and in the Father.

Believers may be in "Us" (He and the Father), but they were to be as one- with each other, as individuals in a unit. Clearly delineated when Jesus said in Jn 17:22 "And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one; ...".

 

Being in God does not mean being God, anymore than being in a house makes you the house. The unity of the people in the house doesn't mean they become one person while in the house either. Jesus prayer is that they might have a more perfected unity in God.

-

"It seems to me, when that is experienced your statements above might go away and no explanation of mine might be necessary."

I'm sorry, but I couldn't help but laugh when I first read this. It seems to be a desire of yours for my statements to just- go away; and then there's the whatever 'that' is.

--

 

Tea,

I agree God is not "a human-being-type of entity". We were made in His image not vice versa.

 

If God were not a person first, that is: having personality, then how does anyone explain the existence of personality (i.e.; love, aspirations) in man?

 

Everything exists by God's fiat. The arduous process of the unreliable time plus chance, (AKA: Evolution and or Natural Selection) is anathema to anything currently actually in existence. God creating everything whole seems, to me, to be a much more efficient and effective way to bring this whole existence about.

 

Evolution and Natural Selection is: nature, the impersonal, all on its own, self-organizing. However, no one has been able to demonstrate how mass, motion, or energy can be on it's own- from nothing; or how mass, motion, or energy can explain man with his personality and aspirations. The answer comes only by understanding that the personal beginning offers the only solution. That's why the term Natural Selection is used. By making the answer with personal connotation words like 'selection', it fits. Natural Selection is actually an oxymoron. Nature is nothing more than mass, motion and energy. There are no other considerations and they do not have the capacity to select. The answer always has to have the elements of the personal to make sense. And that answer rests in the omnipotence of a personal and infinite God.

---

DavidK

[JosephM]

"There is indeed an individual you that is part of what we know as creation."- JosephM

Then God and creation cannot be One entity.

If everything were One:

There would be only unity with no diversity.

There would simply be no reason for creation to exist.

There would be nothing you could call individual. An individual is a distinct and separate entity.

 

Davidk ,

 

Your body is made up of cells. Each can be identified separately yet they make up one whole unit. Those cells are united in one body yet they depend on each other to exist. They do not ask "do i have a reason to exist? " There is both unity and diversity in them. These are flesh analogies but they relate to spiritual things. You may appear as a separate entity from your vantage point but your very being exists only in God. Perhaps you do not see this as i? That is okay.

 

 

"That which is the essence of that creation and gives it life is unborn and eternally One."

This further seems to conflict us. What do you mean by "That"?

That

is the essence of

that

creation? I can't follow your "that's" to know your meaning.

When using the term 'essence', what are you defining the final nature of all of creation to be? Man is not made up of God, but is peculiarly made by God. This is the direction on how to answer for the diversity, and not just the unity, in the universe.

 

 

I have no conflict here with essence yet I cannot explain essence to you except to use abstract words like 'substratum of being' anymore than i can show you the formless. To me it is self-evident but perhaps not to you. That also is okay with me.

 

 

"Jesus understood well when he said 'I and my father are One' and he prayed that 'you' might be One even as he was One."

'Might' (or 'may') is hardly definitive.

Anyway, when Jesus speaks of those "who believe in Me" (that's not implied by Jesus to be everyone) being one, as He and the Father are One, it is from His prayer that all believers may all be one (united) together as Jesus and the Father are one (united) together.

Jesus only said He was one with and in the Father.

Believers may be in "Us" (He and the Father), but they were to be as one- with each other, as individuals in a unit. Clearly delineated when Jesus said in Jn 17:22 "And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one; ...".

 

Being in God does not mean being God, anymore than being in a house makes you the house. The unity of the people in the house doesn't mean they become one person while in the house either. Jesus prayer is that they might have a more perfected unity in God.

 

You of course read it differently than i do. I read it that his prayer was that we be One even as he and the Father were one. No if, ands, or buts. God is the unity of the whole. There are no parts in Spirit. Parts only exist in the thinking mind. Perhaps the thinking mind confuses itself as separate (ego) or eternal when it in reality can not be so. Creation is ever changing and ephemeral phenomena, God is essence and they are One yet only essence is eternal and in that sense 'real'. Expose ego and the ground of being surfaces and the question of unity and separateness disappears. I believe Tea's post above this one spoke well as to God and evolution and being not being separate.

 

Best wishes to you davidk,

Joseph

[glintofpewter]

Well, once again, I made a fool of myself in ranting.

 

David wrote

Consistent with nature being self-organizing without God's intelligent direction, you have rightly concluded that there is no meaning to any living organisms existence; and thusly this concludes that there is no meaning in man's existence.

Meaning does not exist before our experience; it is comes into existence after our experience.

 

 

David wrote

Perhaps I may be misreading you. Are you attributing man to be the source of intelligence on earth?

Humans are not the source of intelligence in the world. The development of intelligence in the world, which is not limited to humans, is the result of evolution.

 

 

David wrote

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

Natural Selection, is, perhaps, the most rational of the forces and processes that make up the fact and theory of evolution. Natural selection is the result of interaction between the environment and the creature. Mutations are random but they are only one part of evolution. Evolution itself is a-rational. One of the results of these processes, are creatures capable of rational thought. In addition to having the ability to think rationally, we have the ability to experience spiritually.

 

None of this discussion excludes God.

 

 

 

Take Care

 

Dutch

[tariki]

Well, here comes another one making a noble effort to make a fool of himself. Easy enough for me, hardly any effort involved at all. After a week or so in Bonny Scotland, and a wee dram or two, I'm ready for the fray........Also, I have to warn that now I'm a seasoned combatant on more robust Forums, my own style may well have been effected.

 

David, we must be polar opposites. The last thing I ever do (or more often, not at all) is seek definitions of words and remain constant to them. Apparently you use Websters. I would recommend the Oxford English Dictionary, published (leather bound) in 30 volumes. Surely such can hold back the onset of despair?

 

Anyway, without trying to sound superior ( but with my Pure Land honesty, knowing I do feel such ) I'm more into the words near the very beginning of the "Imitation of Christ" by Thomas A' Kempis......."I would rather feel compunction than know how to define it." Indeed, and the same for diversity, individuality. What can be termed the beauty of difference.

 

Really, I have no idea just what you are seeking to "prove", or what your motives are. I can barely understand myself at times. That the Bible is the "clear and precise" letter of God to humanity that leaves us in absolutely no doubt - or excuse - for "rejecting "Him"? That first, you need to demonstrate that such a "being" is the "only" possible source of all those things many humans hold dear? Well, go ahead, be my guest. I barely understand a word you write, and your logic is totally lost on me.

 

In my experience those in this world of ours who show in their lives that they truly value the "beauty of difference", who give evidence of individuality, who in fact live a life that could be said to honour the divine...........are in fact people of diverse faiths, some of whom would not give the "clear and precise" instructions in the Good Book a second glance. No doubt, if we wish to grasp at straws, we can speak of the "sheep" in the famous parable, those who had no idea that they were actually serving Christ, ye were invited by Jesus to come into their inheritance. Yes, grasping at straws. There are simpler ways of seeing all this, without referrence to Websters (or the Oxford English for that matter)

 

Anyway, hopefully I have kept my ranting under enough control to get this post past the close inspection of the Moderators.

 

All the best

tariki

[Neon Genesis]

Then God and creation cannot be One entity.

If everything were One:

There would be only unity with no diversity.

There would simply be no reason for creation to exist.

There would be nothing you could call individual. An individual is a distinct and separate entity.

[/font][/size]

 

That would be like saying since you believe Jesus and God are one with each other, then there is no diversity in God and there is no reason for God to exist and there is nothing we could call an individual god.

[tariki]

That would be like saying since you believe Jesus and God are one with each other, then there is no diversity in God and there is no reason for God to exist and there is nothing we could call an individual god.

 

Neon, you raise an interesting point. That there is unity in diversity (or is it diversity in unity? - I never was one to understand the Trinity!) is a "mystery of faith". That "Reality-as-is" itself can hold diversity within itself, though a unity, seems more problamatic to some.

 

[glintofpewter]

To play with the absolute thinking here --

 

If God is the absolutely infinite Creator of the known universe, then God is out side the known universe and therefore there is nothing we can say about God. Our only response is silence because we do not know. God cannot be known because God is outside the known universe.

 

If God is absolutely personal with human attributes then God is limited by individual personal responses and is only part of the known universe.

 

If God is absolutely rational then there is much that is irrational about belief such as the scales of heart ache and justice being evened out in heaven. That is irrational and magical thinking. It is expecting action beyond our knowing.

 

If we put absolute thinking aside, drop the human attributes, and throw in a few maybes then we maybe we could say something real about our experience of God.

 

Take care

 

Dutch

[minsocal]

Neon, you raise an interesting point. That there is unity in diversity (or is it diversity in unity? - I never was one to understand the Trinity!) is a "mystery of faith". That "Reality-as-is" itself can hold diversity within itself, though a unity, seems more problamatic to some.

 

 

Whitehead (1929/ 1978) adds: -- “It is as true to say that God is permanent and the World fluent, as that the World is permanent and God is fluent.” -- “It is as true to say that God is one and the World many, as that the World is one and God many.” -- “It is as true to say that, in comparison with the World, God is actual eminently, as that, in comparison with God, the World is actual eminently.” -- “It is as true to say that the World is immanent in God, as that God is immanent in the World.” -- “It is as true to say that God transcends the World, as that the World transcends God.” -- “It is as true to say that God creates the World, as that the World creates God.”

[minsocal]

There is diversity in God and in humans:

 

Our forefather Jacob was later given an additional name -- Israel,1 which is why the Jews, his children, are referred to by both names.

 

The two names represent different virtues, both which are inherent within each Jew, and are exhibited at different points in one's life experiences.

 

In short, Jacob refers to the Jew when his service of G‑d requires toil, struggle and effort ("servants"), whereas Israel refers to the Jew when his service of G‑d is pleasurable and natural ("children").

 

Rabbi Baruch S. Davidson

 

Rabbi Davidson goes on to explain this diversity, Click Here

[glintofpewter]

My post #88 was done in an unfiltered fit of competitive ego.

 

I do not wish to pursue that line of thought. Others are dealing with the problem more elegantly.

 

“It is as true to say that God creates the World, as that the World creates God.”

 

minsocal I like this

 

Dutch

[glintofpewter]

I apologize. I couldn't resist but the Big Bang theory is being replaced (really) by

 

Eternally Existing Self-Reproducing Chaotic Inflationary Universe

 

 

The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe (Scientific American)

http://www.mukto-mona.com/science/physics/Inflation_lself_prod_inde.pdf

 

See also

^ Holt, Jim. "The Big Lab Experiment. Was our universe created by design?". Slate. http://www.slate.com/id/2100715/.

 

Take Care

 

Dutch

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Everything exists by God's fiat. The arduous process of the unreliable time plus chance, (AKA: Evolution and or Natural Selection) is anathema to anything currently actually in existence. God creating everything whole seems, to me, to be a much more efficient and effective way to bring this whole existence about.

 

 

Even if you believe everything exists because it was created by God, you still have to explain HOW God created the universe. How did God form the Earth? How did God form life into being? How did God create consciousness? How does God keep us from floating off into space every time we jump off the planet? Simply saying "Goddidit" is a non-answer, it is a failure to explain anything. You still have to have a theory of gravity to explain how God keeps you from falling off the Earth. To say "Goddidit" is the explanation to explain how life was created is like saying "Goddidit" to explain how gravity works.

[glintofpewter]

God creating everything whole seems,. . .

David what do mean "creating everything whole"?

 

Dutch

[davidk]

We see and know there is genuine unity and diversity in all that is around us. And the analogy with the human body, is dead on.

This unity and diversity is answered for with a single, unified and diverse, God.

 

Our very beings are finite, because we were created. God is infinite because He is the Creator. The Creator and the created will have similarities, but by no stretch are they the same entity.

 

You and I are personal, but finite beings. God is personal and infinite. Our unity with God is on the personal level, but not on the infinite level.

 

Non-man (the rest of nature) is in unity with man by being the creation. That is, man and non-man are in unity by being created- finite. Neither man nor non-man is infinite like God is.

 

Each person has their own separate mind, body, and soul(spirit).

If there were really only one spirit, then there is really no diversity. With no diversity, no single thing has merit.

-

 

We discover the meaning of what exists with our experience. The meaning of what exists must pre-exist our experience.

 

OK. So, where is it, again, that we didn't leave out God?

Natural Selection, is the most rational force.

"Eternally Existing Self-Reproducing Chaotic Inflationary Universe-

The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe (Scientific American)"

 

Oh, here it is...

"...the World creates God" Is this consistent with Progressive Christianity?

-

 

Well, it appears Webster's has escaped being considered a "convoluted and coded" source of information, notwithstanding the Oxford English Dictionary. That clears my name in reference to the defintion of 'scientific method'; which remains accurate. Any further ridicule should be forwarded to the G. C. Merriam Publishing Co.

 

I am curious about something. (Perhaps a superior someone may help.) How does one know if one feels compunction without knowing what compunction is? How would one expect to communicate his meaning to others? If one adheres to no constants in the meaning of his words, is it then, any more than gibberish?

Most assuredly, if one doesn't remain within the confines of the definitions of the words they articulate, then one would surely fail miserably in any effort to communicate a thought to anyone, even to oneself; and, therefore, one would be unable to claim any meaningful knowlededge.

-

 

"If everything were one, there would be only unity with no diversity"; then, as has been asserted, there would be no diversity in God. That would be true.

 

Acknowledging God created doesn't make it unreasonable to ask the "how's". It is perfectly reasonable, in fact.

-

 

God is 'outside' the known universe. If you hold the presupposition of the uniformity of natural causes (nature) in a closed system, then 'God' would not be able to influence what He created. This kind of being 'outside' would restrict God from having any influence on it.

Christianity, however, does not restrict God from His influence on the Universe, but presupposes God does have influence on His creation (an open system), and has no problem understanding God letting Himself be known.

 

God made Man. And when He did, He gave man attributes of His personality.

-

 

"everything whole" simply means everything was created already in its proper relationship to everything else.

-

Davidk

[davidk]

That first, you need to demonstrate that such a "being" is the "only" possible source of all those things many humans hold dear? Well, go ahead, be my guest. I barely understand a word you write, and your logic is totally lost on me.

Dear Derek,

You've cast the gauntlet, and I wish to reply. But time is spent today. In the immortal words of the Gov. of California, "I'll be back."

-

DavidK

[minsocal]

<snip>

I am curious about something. (Perhaps a superior someone may help.) How does one know if one feels compunction without knowing what compunction is? How would one expect to communicate his meaning to others? If one adheres to no constants in the meaning of his words, is it then, any more than gibberish?

<snip>

 

Davidk

 

Main Entry: com·punc·tion

Pronunciation: \kəm-ˈpəŋ(k)-shən\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English compunccioun, from Anglo-French compunction, from Late Latin compunction-, compunctio, from Latin compungere to prick hard, sting, from com- + pungere to prick — more at pungent

Date: 14th century

1 a : anxiety arising from awareness of guilt <compunctions of conscience> b : distress of mind over an anticipated action or result <showed no compunction in planning devilish engines of…destruction — Havelock Ellis>

2 : a twinge of misgiving : scruple <cheated without compunction>

 

synonyms see penitence, qualm

 

— com·punc·tious \-shəs\ adjective

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compunction

[tariki]

Dear Derek,

You've cast the gauntlet, and I wish to reply. But time is spent today. In the immortal words of the Gov. of California, "I'll be back."

-

DavidK

 

Dear david, whatever you may think I have cast, I am quite serious in saying "don't bother". We are not on the same wavelength. Or perhaps you could take a three year course (perhaps ten) in Tibetan metaphysics, then have a go, by which time I would be long gone.

 

All the best

Derek

[glintofpewter]

"everything whole" simply means everything was created already in its proper relationship to everything else.

 

David

 

Is this moment of creation rooted in time and space?

 

Dutch

[glintofpewter]

OK. So, where is it, again, that we didn't leave out God?

Natural Selection, is the most rational force.

"Eternally Existing Self-Reproducing Chaotic Inflationary Universe-

The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe (Scientific American)"

It is the process by which a dynamic and free creation is becoming; a divine process.

 

Dutch