tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post1878497978834023637..comments2023-05-24T05:37:27.382-07:00Comments on Grace and Miracles: Does God Hide in the Gaps of Science?Anette Ackerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comBlogger119125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-45127403049313777322011-08-12T05:29:12.865-07:002011-08-12T05:29:12.865-07:00Our God of the gaps
...Our God of the gaps<br /> <br /> I will begin this article with two postulates: 1) God has created this universe; 2) He has brought man in this universe with some purpose.<br /> I am not claiming here that these two postulates are true, or that I can prove them to be true. But I want to show here that if these two postulates are true, then God will always be the God of the gaps. Anyone who will be reading this article should not forget that there is an “if” clause in the last sentence.<br /> Now I will begin with the supposition that God has created this universe. If God has created this universe, then He could have created it in four different ways: 1) He created it in such a way that there was no necessity for Him to intervene in it after creation, 2) After creation He intervened in it, but these interventions were a bare minimum, that is, He intervened only when these were absolutely necessary. In order to clarify my point here, I will say that He intervened only when He found that without His intervention the universe would come to a standstill, 3) He created the universe in such a way that in order to keep it going He had to make very frequent interventions in it, 4) God's total intervention after creation.<br /> If it was the purpose of God to keep mankind crippled in every possible way, then He would have adopted either the third or the fourth way while creating the universe. This is because in these two cases man, in spite of his having sufficient intelligence and reasoning power, will fail to unveil the secrets of nature, because in almost every phenomenon of nature that he will decide to study he will ultimately find that there always remains an unknown factor, for which he will have no explanation. For him the book of nature will thus remain closed for ever. But if it were God's purpose that man be master of His creation, then it is quite natural for Him that He would try to keep the book of nature as much open to him as possible, so that with the little intelligence he has been endowed with man will be able to decipher the language of nature, and with that acquired knowledge he will also be able to improve the material conditions of his life. In that case God will try to adopt the policy of maximum withdrawal from His creation. He will create the universe in such a way that without His intervention the created world will be able to unfold itself. However that does not mean that He will never intervene. He will definitely intervene when without His intervention the created world would become stagnant. In such a scenario man will be able to give an explanation of almost all physical events in scientific language. But in those cases where God has actually intervened, he will fail to do so. <br /> So I think there is no reason for us to be ashamed of the "God of the gaps" hypothesis. Yes, if God has created the universe, and if God’s purpose was that man be master of His creation, then He would try to keep as little gap in His creation as possible. But the minimum gap that would be ultimately left can never be bridged by any sort of scientific explanation. God will also reside in that gap. Why should we be ashamed of that?<br /> Therefore, I can conclude this article in this way: If God created this universe, and if God wanted man to be the master of His creation, then God would willingly choose to be the “God of the gaps”. <br /> So it is quite logical that a God who will create man with some purpose will always prefer to be the God of the gaps.Uchitrakarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14445318890971725873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-75553764072137120742010-09-02T16:44:22.338-07:002010-09-02T16:44:22.338-07:00Aside from reconciling Bible verses, have you an a...<i>Aside from reconciling Bible verses, have you an argument in which free will and foreknowledge are compatible?</i><br /><br />My taped football game analogy reconciles free will and foreknowledge. Whether or not you have foreknowledge while watching the game does not determine whether or not the players had free will when they played. This has nothing to do with what the Bible teaches. <br /><br />In fact, some Christians (hyper-Calvinists) believe essentially what you do, that God has decided who will be saved and who will not, and we can do nothing about it. <br /><br />Most Christians (including Calvinists) find this to be unbiblical, just like most people (Christian or not) believe that we have some degree of free will.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-29833180247158568692010-09-02T16:37:58.957-07:002010-09-02T16:37:58.957-07:00Ryk,
I'm going to quote someone else with res...Ryk,<br /><br />I'm going to quote someone else with respect to fatalism, something that I disagree with. However, I do agree that our wills are by no means absolutely free, but I'll elaborate on that later. For now, I prefer to quote this person's thoughts on the matter:<br /><br /><i>“A case in point is all those who suppose that the necessary truth of the statement “The future will be what it will be” commits us to believing that the future must be what it is going to be and it is impossible for us to divert the future from its predetermined course. They suppose that logic itself commits us to fatalism.<br /><br />On analysis, their reasoning goes like this. Consider the proposition<br /><br />(13) If P then P.<br /><br />where P is a contingent proposition such as Aristotle’s “A sea battle will occur in the Bay of Salamis.” Since (13) is a truth of logic, and hence necessarily true, it is also true that<br /><br />(14) It is necessary that if P then P.<br /><br />In (14) the modal property of being necessarily true is attributed to (13), and the expression “necessary” is being used in the absolute sense to mean that there are no logically possible conditions under which (13) is false. Now (14) lends itself to being expressed by sentences such as<br /><br />(15) “If P then it is necessary that P.”<br /><br />and its syntactic equivalent<br /><br />(16) “If P then it is impossible that not-P.”<br /><br />But in (15) and (16) we have a potential source of logical confusion. On the one hand, we can think of each as merely expressing (14) in other words. And in that case nothing remotely fatalistic even seems to follow from the necessary truth with which we started. But on the other hand, we can erroneously think of (15) and (16) as attributing absolute necessity or impossibility to the consequent clause or its denial, respectively.<br /><br />That’s the fallacy committed by many metaphysicians when discussing Aristotle’s problem of future contingents. Aristotle had posed the question whether, if it is true that a sea battle is going to occur in the Bay of Salamis, it follows that such a sea battle must occur, and cannot but occur. To answer “Yes” would seem to commit one to saying that the logical truth of (13), as stated in (14), entails that the future is fated and that there is nothing one can do about it. It is to suppose, as I once put it, that logical determinism–the logical truth of (13)–entails logical fatalism. But, of course, logic itself does not dictate that the proposition P, as it occurs in the consequent clause of (15) and (16) is itself “necessarily true” or that its denial, not-P, is “not possibly true” or “impossible.” These modal expressions, as they occur in the consequents of (15) and (16), should not be understood in an absolute sense, but in a consequential sense. For the proposition P, remember, is a contingent proposition and hence not necessarily true and not such that its denial is impossible. That is to say, because P–by hypothesis–is contingent, it could be false (where “could” is to be understood in the absolute sense). To suppose that P can’t be false on the basis of the infelicitously expressed sentences (15) and (16) is to confuse the consequential uses of these modal expressions with their absolute uses. It is to be guilty of The Modal Muddle. All that follows from, is entailed by, the truth of the proposition that a sea battle will occur is that it will occur, not that it “must” occur or that its nonoccurrence is “impossible.”</i> <br /><br />~ Raymond BradleyAnette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-28212908665439218462010-08-31T11:23:25.069-07:002010-08-31T11:23:25.069-07:00Ryk,
Your comment showed up in my email, so I'...Ryk,<br /><br />Your comment showed up in my email, so I'll just repost it here:<br /><br />I think you are relying on special pleading simply because verses of the Bible contradict. Either God knows already who is to be saved and I either am or am not one or God does not know. It can not be both. You yourself said that omnipotence is being able to do anything logically possible. Free will in the presence of foreknowledge is not logically possible.<br /><br />You may be correct in that my prayer and submission had an effect to which I am unaware. If so that effect will eventually be known or it won't. Again my participation is not required. My choice to make that plea was based on my temerment, circumstances and inclinations which stem from heredity and environment. I had no idea I would make such a choice but surely I could not have made another.<br /><br />Similarly if such an effect from my prayer results in my salvation then that is as your God always knew it would. If it does not that is also how your God always knew it would not. Again since God knows, assuming he is real, then he knows. If he does not know then something I do or don't do may have an impact, but that is similarly out of my control. My atheism, while supported by all sorts of evidence and argument is basically a lack of belief. As I can not, barring psychological conditioning or severe head injury alter my essential nature I can not, even though I have tried mightily, compell myself to believe that which I know is not true.<br /><br />Therefore either my lack of belief will change or it won't, in either case any omniscient being would know and it is foreordained either way. <br /><br />Aside from reconciling Bible verses, have you an argument in which free will and foreknowledge are compatible?<br /><br />On to your football game analogy you say:"Does that mean the players did not have the freedom to choose while they were playing? No. Your knowledge of the outcome has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they have free will, because you have no control over them. <br /><br />Their lack of free will while playing was not due to my foreknowledge it was due to the fact that free will does not exist. The game was a foregone conclusion prior to ever being played. It was based on the personalities and skills of the players, vagaries of the weather, states of personal health, the players moods, perhaps even variations in the actions of subatomic particles. While it would have been impossible to calculate these variables prior to the game and foreknow the outcome that does not mean that free will played a part. The players played because their heredity, environment and temperment led them to be football players. They played the game according to their physical and mental states, performing the actions that those states led them to in response to the actions of other players and other circumstances. If time travel were possible and an observer truly replayed the game over and over it would be the same every time.<br /><br />The only advantage of watching the replay is I have awareness of the outcome as I did not in the live game. The outcome of the replay is not however any more certain than the original, nor is the original any more subject to chance or free will than the replay.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-56925902122715885292010-08-29T17:03:27.022-07:002010-08-29T17:03:27.022-07:00I responded at length and it said my comment had b...I responded at length and it said my comment had been saved but it has not appeared. I will check back later if it has not gone through I will repost. My computer has been doing strange things lately as regards internet posting so it may not.Rykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16424545934239146403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-74174689429344937082010-08-28T07:45:57.710-07:002010-08-28T07:45:57.710-07:00I think the reason why I didn't see your comme...I think the reason why I didn't see your comment was that I was in a hurry to get out of there. I'm really sick of AC because I think most of the people are there for the barbs and to see Christians acting stupidly. It's also really hard to have a conversation there because the threads get old so fast. So I'm taking a couple of weeks to decide if it's worth the time and effort to comment there anymore. <br /><br /><i>I had no resistance to doing so, atheism is not a religion, I was in no way compromising any principles and indeed would have welcomed the ability to see the evidence of your God. Sadly I got nothin', I wasn't expecting angels and trumpets, or even a personal revelation. Something as simple as being able to see the logic in the "creation proves a creator" argument, or to see the Bible as more than primitive mythology, or even to see the Christian deity as good and kind the way Christians do. I would have accepted any of this as evidence. Yet nothin'.</i><br /><br />First, "creation proves a creator" is a tautology, and I don't even see the logic in it, so unless you want God to give you a blow to the head, you should not pray that He will enable you to appreciate fallacious logic. ;) <br /><br />Second, how do you know that God has not answered your prayer? One thing I've learned in all the years I've been a Christian is that God never does things the way I expect, but in retrospect it always makes more sense the way He does do it. You said you weren't expecting a personal revelation, but it kind of seems like you were since you were expecting an immediate change. <br /><br /><i>This led me to an interesting conclusion. According to your religion your deity already knows who is to be saved, the elect. Therefore it logically follows that I either am one or am not. I simply do not know which. Now as God is supposedly infallible he can not be mistaken about who is to be saved. Therefore if I am one of the elect then I will be saved. No amount of "hard heartedness" or whatever will prevent that.</i><br /><br />Before I answer this, I would like your response to the taped football game analogy. <br /><br />But suffice it to say that the reason why theology can be hard to understand is because it encompasses concepts that appear contradictory but are not, on the one hand. But on the other hand, God cannot violate the rules of logic. If something is axiomatic, it simply is, and God is bound by it. He has to be. <br /><br />So on the one hand, God does know who will be saved. But on the other hand, Revelation 2:7 says: "To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God." Both can be true. So it definitely matters what you do.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-66852099165949000032010-08-28T06:49:30.683-07:002010-08-28T06:49:30.683-07:00Ryk, I'm so sorry! I just realized that I didn...Ryk, I'm so sorry! I just realized that I didn't see your comment addressed to me on AC. I might as well repost it here since I don't think anyone is still reading that old thread:<br /><br />Annette Acker said:<br />But it can be difficult to be self-aware enough to know this, so one test is to see if you are willing to sincerely say to God, "If you are real I will surrender my life to you, but you'll have to reveal yourself to me." Your willingness or unwillingness to do that will tell you if your doubt is a matter of will or intellect.<br /><br />Excellent I did this exact thing not long ago at the urging of a Christian internet friend. Tracy Wagman of the blog "Tacklebox". I did so with complete sincerity, because she and I had been discussing the premise that it is the only way to see the evidence for Gods existence. I even, in accordance to the beliefs of one of my Christian real world friends, repented and asked forgiveness for my sins and humbly begged for a relationship with Christ.<br /><br />I had no resistance to doing so, atheism is not a religion, I was in no way compromising any principles and indeed would have welcomed the ability to see the evidence of your God. Sadly I got nothin', I wasn't expecting angels and trumpets, or even a personal revelation. Something as simple as being able to see the logic in the "creation proves a creator" argument, or to see the Bible as more than primitive mythology, or even to see the Christian deity as good and kind the way Christians do. I would have accepted any of this as evidence. Yet nothin'.<br /><br />It seems that either A. There is no God, or B. I am not one of the elect and God has no use for me.<br /><br />This led me to an interesting conclusion. According to your religion your deity already knows who is to be saved, the elect. Therefore it logically follows that I either am one or am not. I simply do not know which. Now as God is supposedly infallible he can not be mistaken about who is to be saved. Therefore if I am one of the elect then I will be saved. No amount of "hard heartedness" or whatever will prevent that. At some point prior to my death I will come to know Christ and be saved. If I am not one of the elect then nothing I do can change that. No amount of prayer or repentance will make it happen, no matter how faithful I seemed even to myself in the end I would be proven a false convert. Hence there is no reason for me to be concerned about hell, whatever happens is foreordained.<br /><br />So my atheism is no bar to salvation, nor are any sins, nor is pride or anything else Ray goes on about. Either I will be or I will not be. If I am to be then any sins I may commit will be forgiven, If I am not then it matters not if I sin. Fortunately I lack belief in both Gods and sin. I simply do what is right in accordance to the values my upbringing, instincts, and environment have given me. <br /><br />My life is not filled with what you would call sin, except of course those parts that directly relate to not believing, and Rays version of the thought crimes verses. According to my and most peoples standards of good person I pass. However theologically if I am of the elect I could be a cold blooded murderer and eventually before death would find belief, forgiveness and salvation. If I am not then no amount of virtue or faith will make a difference.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-68064803801443394682010-08-26T19:19:45.560-07:002010-08-26T19:19:45.560-07:00Excellent, if God is bound by logic then either fr...<i>Excellent, if God is bound by logic then either free will does not exist or God is not omniscient.<br /><br />Unless of course there is a logical argument in which free will can coexist with omniscience. Hint there is not.</i><br /><br />Let's say you've already watched a football game, and you taped it while you watched it. So you know exactly what happened. But because you loved the game so much you decide to watch it again. You would be omniscient and also outside of time with respect to the game (you could turn it off, go to bed, and start it up again the next day).<br /><br />Does that mean the players did not have the freedom to choose while they were playing? No. Your knowledge of the outcome has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they have free will, because you have no control over them. <br /><br />Some things are just hard to conceptualize; other things really are logically impossible. Scientists will never discover that 2+2=5. Nor will they ever discover that A ≠ A. However, Einstein had to shake himself of the notion that "God doesn't play dice." Quantum physics seemed illogical to him, but it is just bizarre, not logically impossible.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-66414525284711198092010-08-21T19:03:44.747-07:002010-08-21T19:03:44.747-07:00Excellent, if God is bound by logic then either fr...Excellent, if God is bound by logic then either free will does not exist or God is not omniscient.<br /><br />Unless of course there is a logical argument in which free will can coexist with omniscience. Hint there is not.<br /><br />Now this is not an inherent contradiction with the Bible which does not specifically claim omniscience. It only claims a vast and comprehensive knowledge which is similar but not the same. It would be consistent with the Bible(although not with any religion) to claim that there are indeed things God does not know. This would not only permit free will, and randomness, but also let God off the hook for a portion of the problem of evil. I am unaware of any religion that says this.<br /><br />I am not aware of any way in which determinism conflicts with science.<br />I would agree that determinism is not specifically supported by science but I have not seen any mathematical proof of randomness. There are as I have said uncaused causes and indetermined states, but no one that I am aware of has positively asserted thes to be true rather than apparent randomness.<br /><br />Science has a ways to go before it can state affirmitively that there are truly things that happen, apart from any agency. Even the indeterminite nature of radioactive decay can not truly be said to be random simply because we are unaware of the forces governing it in sufficient detail to make such a claim. The best that can be done is a declaration of ignorance, essentially that we have no way of determining what if anything causes an atom to decay at any given time.<br /><br />As I said it is no more or less rational to claim there are no laws governing radioactive decay than to say there are. Science does not know. As everything that has been observed beyond the quantum level can be shown to procede in accordance with cause and effect I see no reason not to presume that quantum level effects do also, even if we have no knowledge of the rules governing such cause and effect.<br /><br />Likewise if we take the common view that there are "uncaused causes" at the quantum level that neatly removes the necessity of God as an uncaused cause. If such things are common why attribute them to intelligence?<br /><br />I do not take this view, I see all things as caused, which ironically does permit the existence of a God or Gods. It does not however require such an existence. At any rate you did not refute my premise that were the Christian God both real and as claimed omniscient, niether randomness or free will are possible.Rykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16424545934239146403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-47230574531277137142010-08-21T07:07:59.675-07:002010-08-21T07:07:59.675-07:00However it is not truly free will in a philosophic...<i>However it is not truly free will in a philosophic sense because whatever choice I make is the only one I could have made.</i><br /><br />That is circular reasoning. The mere fact that you made a decision doesn't mean that you didn't have free choice. In fact, your belief in a deterministic universe goes against modern science. Therefore, it is more reasonable to conclude that free will exists. <br /><br /><i>If the Bible does not purport to be a science textbook why do you select one small part the "in the beginning bit" and match it to science. It seems to me you pick those things you find consistent with science and put them forth but when something doesn't you claim that "well the Bible isn't a science textbook". Seems a bit silly to me. Either the Bibles claims about creation have relevance or they do not, picking and choosing is dishonest.</i><br /><br />I take an honest interpretation of the Bible very seriously, and the Bible's claims about creation have <i>great</i> relevance. However, you are assuming that the YECs are the ones who interpret the Bible accurately. What basis do you have for that belief?<br /><br />I did an analysis of Genesis 3 in the comments of my most recent post on this blog, in case you are interested. It is probably the most theologically dense chapter of the whole Bible. <br /><br />Also, in Matthew 5 Jesus said that He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (the OT), but in addition to fulfilling them, He also superseded them. That is, He said, "You have heard that it was said . . . but I say to you . . ." As the second Person of the Godhead, He had the authority to do that. <br /><br />So we are only bound by the NT, but the OT is also very important when we read it through the NT lens (again, see my discussion of Genesis 3). This means that it is quite accurate to say that all we have to know about the creation of the universe is expressed in Hebrews 11:3: "By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible." This is what we, as Christians, are to know by faith. The rest we can know by science. The Hebrews filled in the cosmology of the ancient Near East. We can fill in the cosmology of modern science. <br /><br /><i>You can of course claim this God figure is not limited by logic and that would be completely consistent with omnipotence. This does however unravel a great many other applications of apologetics which rely on the nature of God being logical as an explanation for universal logic.</i><br /><br />No, I would not argue that, because He is limited by logic in the same way that He is limited by the Moral Law. If logic and objective morality means anything, God has to be limited by it. This means that your definition of omnipotence does not describe the Christian God. C. S. Lewis said: "Omnipotence means the power to do all that is intrinsically possible." This means that God cannot be holy and not holy at the same time. That is a logical impossibility. It is also a moral impossibility. He embodies the Moral Law. God has to be true to His nature. The Bible says that it is impossible for God to lie. We can extrapolate and say that God cannot be less than holy. This is both a biblically accurate and logical assertion.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-84736992025629582342010-08-21T07:03:48.885-07:002010-08-21T07:03:48.885-07:00While your various interpretations may allow for t...<i>While your various interpretations may allow for the possibility of a God, nothing in them requires the existence of a God. If therefore there is no need to presuppose a God, why would one?<br /><br />Nothing about Gods is necessary for either the functioning of a universe, the existence of one, or the understanding of one, so unless one can be shown as necesssary why should it be assumed to exist.</i><br /><br />The mere fact that things can be explained by science doesn't mean that God is not necessary for the functioning of the universe. It does mean that your Magic Guy in the Sky doesn't exist, but it doesn't mean that God isn't necessary. <br /><br />The Bible says that God keeps us alive. Have you ever thought about what an amazing thing life is? Science can describe a lot of things about life and living creatures, but why is there life to begin with? And what exactly is life?<br /><br />What we think of as a "soul" the Hebrew Bible calls "nephesh," and it means "life" or "soul." The first time it's used is in Genesis 1:24: "Then God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures [nephesh] after their kind.'" And then in Genesis 2:7: "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being [nephesh]." So the animals were "nephesh" before we were. <br /><br />Science can explain a lot about how this universe functions, but it can't explain why we are here and whether there is something beyond nature, because it can only study nature. <br /><br />Atheists often compare belief in God to belief in Santa Claus and unicorns, etc. Well, kids stop believing in Santa Claus when they realize that there is a more reasonable explanation for the presents under the tree. But what if they stopped believing in Santa Claus even if there was no alternative explanation? The presents just appeared under the tree, but nobody put them there. That would be even less reasonable than believing in Santa Claus. <br /><br />I will admit that your Magic Guy in the Sky is not a very good explanation for the universe we live in because there is no hint of him anywhere. It is a childish explanation, so it's not wonder you rejected it. However, atheism is no explanation at all. And I know you're going to say that it's just absence of belief, but that's like saying that some people just have an absence of belief that either Santa Claus, their parents, or anybody else put presents under their tree. All they know is that the presents are there. They have no belief one way or the other of how the presents got there, but they don't believe that anyone put them there. <br /><br />IMHO, what is far more reasonable is that there is a Creator, that He created the laws of nature, and that His nature is revealed in His creation. That is, He is the Great Scientist who reveals His mind in creation as well the Great Artist who reveals His beauty, power, and majesty.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-63450025840218699492010-08-14T14:36:32.167-07:002010-08-14T14:36:32.167-07:00While your various interpretations may allow for t...While your various interpretations may allow for the possibility of a God, nothing in them requires the existence of a God. If therefore there is no need to presuppose a God, why would one?<br /><br />Nothing about Gods is necessary for either the functioning of a universe, the existence of one, or the understanding of one, so unless one can be shown as necesssary why should it be assumed to exist.<br /><br />As to the universe being deterministic, yes I believe it is absolutely so. This is only relevant philisophically because since in practice I have no idea as to what variables are determining my choices, it is for all practical purposes the same as free will. However it is not truly free will in a philosophic sense because whatever choice I make is the only one I could have made.<br /><br />As to your premise that your deity knowing the future is consistent with free will, that is only an assertion on your part and means nothing. If we were created by a being who can do anything and knows everything then there is no free will. If being omniscient it knows the eventual outcome and by being omniscient had complete control of our creation, it knew at the moment of creation what every entity ever to exist would do and created them in such a manner that they would do them. If this is not the case it is either not omniscient (it did not know the outcome at the time of creation) or not omnipotent( did not have control of what it was creating) or both.<br /><br />You may say omniscience and omnipotence allow for free will in a creation but those are just words. Please provide logical argumentation under which free will is possible.<br /><br />If the Bible does not purport to be a science textbook why do you select one small part the "in the beginning bit" and match it to science. It seems to me you pick those things you find consistent with science and put them forth but when something doesn't you claim that "well the Bible isn't a science textbook". Seems a bit silly to me. Either the Bibles claims about creation have relevance or they do not, picking and choosing is dishonest.<br /><br />As to what can be seen from an evidentiary perspective, Genesis is as I have said and you seem to indicate as well, a creation myth. As such I see no reason to propose it has any truth. As you arguments indicate it is not impossible that it could be true, but there is nothing to indicate it need be true, or should be true.<br /><br />You ask for my definition of omnipotent as if that were a subjective thing. Omnipotent means all powerful, capable of anything, although it is reasonable to preclude logical impossibilities like creating a rock it cannot lift and such. That is omnipotent. How that is not a correct interpretation of the Christian God figure seems a mystery to me. Same goes for omniscient meaning all knowing, having complete knowledge of all things, again we could preclude logical impossibilities like posing a question it could not answer. This also seems consistent with the Christian God figure as it is explained by the churches.<br /><br />It is my submission that under the definitions of omnipotence, and omniscience then free will is itself a logical impossibility in a universe created by a being possesing both. It is comparable to the afforementioned unliftable rock and unanswerable question. You can of course claim this God figure is not limited by logic and that would be completely consistent with omnipotence. This does however unravel a great many other applications of apologetics which rely on the nature of God being logical as an explanation for universal logic.Rykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16424545934239146403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-76800628490938012382010-08-13T07:24:41.466-07:002010-08-13T07:24:41.466-07:00If it were then my off the cuff and naive quantum ...<i> If it were then my off the cuff and naive quantum physics lecture to comfort would be true, for it is consistent with science and more rational than an omnipotent being.</i><br /><br />I don't understand why you think that the idea of an omnipotent being is irrational. And what exactly do you mean by an "omnipotent being"? I've noticed that a number of non-believers have an image of what God would have to be if He exists that does not correspond to how He is. <br /><br /><i>As to quantum physics being probabalistic I am unconvinced. While it shows many apparently random factors such as uncaused causes and indeterminate states, that only shows it does not follow the laws we understand not that it follows none at all. While it is only speculation on my part that such laws exist it is equally speculative that they do not.</i><br /><br />Do you believe the universe is completely deterministic?<br /><br /><i>As a Christian it seems odd you would believe in randomness. If there were an omniscient being then there would be no randomness. All would be foreknown hence immutable, the lottery win would have been an absolute certainty not only from the time I bought the ticket but from the beginning of time. If there is randomness then there is no omniscience, hence no God. If there is no randomness then there is no fine tuning hence no need for a God.</i><br /><br />Yes, God knows the future. The Bible makes it very clear that He has always known who will ultimately be saved (the elect). However Revelation says that we have to "overcome" to be saved. So although God knows the outcome, we still have free will and what we do in space-time makes a real difference.<br /><br />The idea of a probabilistic universe is completely consistent with Christian theology which teaches that we have free will within the parameters of God's overall sovereignty. So God then would have set up the universe in such a way that certain outcomes would be far more likely than others, but quantum mechanics as currently understood does not preclude miracles. <br /><br /><i>You are being a bit misleading when you say creation is consitent with science. The true statement would be that it does not conflict with science. To be consistent there would need be evidence of this creation which can be evaluated.</i><br /><br />The words "consistent with" are perfectly appropriate here. The "evidence" for the purposes of determining consistency is the Bible, and we match it up with science. There's no need for additional evidence for creation. <br /><br /><i>Nothing else in Christian theology corresponds with what science says about the origins of the universe in fact it badly conflicts on such things as, the order in which life emerged on earth, the placement of celestial objects, the physical parameters of the earth and the universe.</i><br /><br />First, the Bible does not purport to be a science textbook. It is about God's plan of redemption. I had a long conversation on AC over the past few days (at the end of the John Lennon and the Future thread) about how Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, which means that He superseded the OT, but that the NT interprets the OT. The only thing the NT says about creation is in Hebrews 11:3, "By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible." This is the verse that tells us that God created ex nihilo, and it reinforces Genesis 1:1. However, the rest of Genesis 1 is very much like the cosmologies of the time in the ancient Near East.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-10479485750315289482010-08-09T18:06:45.182-07:002010-08-09T18:06:45.182-07:00Consistent with science is not positive proof or ...Consistent with science is not positive proof or even indication of truth. If it were then my off the cuff and naive quantum physics lecture to comfort would be true, for it is consistent with science and more rational than an omnipotent being. However there is no evidence that my speculation on the matter is accurate only that it is consistent with science.<br /><br />For that matter I could claim that I created the universe yesterday and just made it seem as if there were billions of years of history and that too would be consistent with science.<br /><br />Indication of truth would require evidentiary support.<br /><br />As to quantum physics being probabalistic I am unconvinced. While it shows many apparently random factors such as uncaused causes and indeterminate states, that only shows it does not follow the laws we understand not that it follows none at all. While it is only speculation on my part that such laws exist it is equally speculative that they do not.<br /><br />As to my winning the lottery, if I did then it would have been 100% probable that I would have. I would not have known that when buying the ticket but that is only my ignorance, and in my ignorance probability would have been relevant. In reality however the number was picked by me in accordance with whatever mental processes govern my decisions in such things and the winning number was picked by a machine in accordance with the physical laws that the machine is subject to. My winning was absolutely certain if all of the variables had been known. The fact that those variables are likely unknowable and uncalculateable does not change the fact that real and measurable forces were responsible for my winning the lottery not any illusion of randomness.<br /><br />As a Christian it seems odd you would believe in randomness. If there were an omniscient being then there would be no randomness. All would be foreknown hence immutable, the lottery win would have been an absolute certainty not only from the time I bought the ticket but from the beginning of time. If there is randomness then there is no omniscience, hence no God. If there is no randomness then there is no fine tuning hence no need for a God.<br /><br />You are being a bit misleading when you say creation is consitent with science. The true statement would be that it does not conflict with science. To be consistent there would need be evidence of this creation which can be evaluated. There is not there is only evidence that the universe may have had a beginning and the observation that your creation myth also claims a beginning. Nothing else in Christian theology corresponds with what science says about the origins of the universe in fact it badly conflicts on such things as, the order in which life emerged on earth, the placement of celestial objects, the physical parameters of the earth and the universe.<br /><br />To claim that both the Bible and some cosmological theories both give the universe a beginning as evidence of the truth of the Biblical creation story is spurious.Rykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16424545934239146403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-82616071828167909432010-08-08T06:59:54.068-07:002010-08-08T06:59:54.068-07:00BTW, I was teasing about your "nothing creati...BTW, I was teasing about your "nothing creating everything" comment being a feather in Ray's cap. This has been such a bone of contention between him and the atheists. But I don't think it's funny when he provokes.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-18844342027218267502010-08-07T09:17:01.712-07:002010-08-07T09:17:01.712-07:00Possibility really does not apply to past events, ...<i>Possibility really does not apply to past events, unless you presuppose a multiverse. In the past there was only ever one possibility, the one that happened. Actually in the future there is also only one possibility relating to any particular process, the one that will happen.</i><br /><br />I read a comment you posted on AC where you admitted that you believe that nothing created everything. Congratulations! I'll bet you made Ray's day. :)<br /><br />But you also mentioned quantum physics in your comment, which is probabilistic at its core. God does play dice. So this kind of hard determinism you seem to believe in doesn't exist. <br /><br /><i> The only reason we have to discuss possibility and probability is because we do not know what that is going to be.</i><br /><br />No, if you bought a lottery ticket and you won, you could determine what the probability was if you knew how many tickets were sold. But of course the probability that <i>someone</i> would win was 100%. The question of whether you would win or someone would win are two different ones. And the person who bought 200 tickets has a different probability from the person who bought one. <br /><br /><i>As I said before I do not dismiss evidence for "creation out of hand, and certainly not blindly, I dismiss it because upon evaluation it fails the test of logic, and often science as well.</i><br /><br />How does it fail the test of logic and science? Certainly not in this instance. If creation <i>ex nihilo</i> is consistent with the scientific evidence (which it is), and there are no logical inconsistencies (which there aren't) then it passes both the test of science and logic.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-71644623078856669072010-08-04T20:11:47.932-07:002010-08-04T20:11:47.932-07:00What I am saying is that there is no fine tuning. ...What I am saying is that there is no fine tuning. Or at least evidence of any. I am not ignoring evidence, I am just refusing to manufacture it. Yes I am refusing to speculate, that is a good thing when speculation would be unfounded as it is in this case. As I have repeatedly said there is not the slightest shred of evidence that the ubiverse could have been even one quark different. In fact to my understanding it could not have been because if it had been possible that is what would have happened. Possibility really does not apply to past events, unless you presuppose a multiverse. In the past there was only ever one possibility, the one that happened. Actually in the future there is also only one possibility relating to any particular process, the one that will happen. The only reason we have to discuss possibility and probability is because we do not know what that is going to be. In the past however, at least in most cases we do know what happened and therefore we know the only thing that could have happened. If anything else could have happened, it would have.<br /><br />So if yu propose alternate realities in which other things could have happened then yes it could be argued that it is fortuitous that this one is so eminitely suited for our sort of life, however I do not propose such a multiverse, I only acknowledge this one and we know that since it is suitable for life then that is the only way it could have been. Since it is the only universe we know of then we have to, according to the available evidence also know that this is the only way universes can be, this will hold true until and unless we discover other universes.<br /><br />As I said before I do not dismiss evidence for "creation out of hand, and certainly not blindly, I dismiss it because upon evaluation it fails the test of logic, and often science as well.Rykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16424545934239146403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-31972998588635961522010-08-03T11:04:39.029-07:002010-08-03T11:04:39.029-07:00Hi Ryk,
I've never heard that expression, but...Hi Ryk,<br /><br />I've never heard that expression, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in my part of the world. It's not uncommon for me not to have heard an expression. :)<br /><br /><i>That is my problem with fine tuning as an argument, it requires the presupposition that the universe could have been different, when there is no rational reason to believe it could have. Science can say with considerable accuracy what a universe that is one quark different might be like but they can give no evidence that such a one quark difference could have happened.</i><br /><br />I think you're evading the issue, Ryk, or as Robert Jastrow put it in the quote in my original post, "refusing to speculate." <br /><br />Before scientists knew about the quarks, etc., it would be perfectly reasonable to say, "this is just the way the laws are." But it's hard to do that now, because a scientific gap has been filled in such a way that it points more to intelligent purpose than to anything else. It is very difficult to say that it could have been chance, which is why Dawkins has to hypothesize a multiverse. And even if there was evidence of a multiverse (which there is not), it simply pushes back the question of why there are so many universes and what caused them to exist. Plus, we don't know that given an infinite number of universes, one as finely tuned as ours <i>could</i> have emerged by chance. Dawkins multiplies entities and therefore fails Occam's Razor. The existence of an intelligent Creator who exists outside of time, on the other hand, passes Occam's Razor because no further assumptions have to be made. The explanation fits the scientific evidence perfectly.<br /><br />But what you are essentially saying is that you will ignore the scientific evidence and say "I don't know" until it fits your worldview. You are not even speculating like Dawkins is. Does that mean that nothing would make you consider the possibility that there is a Creator?<br /><br />I am by no means saying that the fine-tuning of the universe proves that there is a Creator, much less the God of the Bible, but it seems like a number of atheists simply ignore the scientific evidence that indicates a Creator, preferring instead to plead ignorance and look to <i>possible</i> future discoveries. Do you see how this will keep you from ever acknowledging that there is a God, even if He exists, because proof is impossible, and yet that is essentially what you demand? Nobody knows anything about future scientific discoveries, and as long as time exists, there is a future, and with it, future scientific discoveries.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-36355189649972807062010-07-29T23:05:09.145-07:002010-07-29T23:05:09.145-07:00As to my profile listing my location as Bumfuq Egy...As to my profile listing my location as Bumfuq Egypt that is a wordplay on a phrase that I found funny. The phrase may not exist in your part of the world but where I come from it is common to refer to a small town, the middle of nowhere or an unidentified location as Bum F@#k Egypt. As I did not care to specify my location on my profile I made a little joke.<br /><br />Although I travel frequently, I was born, raised, and reside in Oregon USA. I was raised in a small town but currently live in a moderately sized city, I just thought Bumfuq Egypt sounded funny. I do have an odd sense of humor.Rykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16424545934239146403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-71317192868123196472010-07-29T22:48:38.120-07:002010-07-29T22:48:38.120-07:00Annete
I am clearly failing at articulating my poi...Annete<br />I am clearly failing at articulating my point clearly, so I will try in a slightly different fashion.<br /><br />According to evidence there is only one universe. There could be others just as there could be Gods, but that is pure speculation, we have evidence of just one. Therefore there is only one way in which universes behave, therefore it is not possible for that one quark difference you mentioned to have occured. Ifit had been then it would have and we would not be having this discussion.<br /><br />So since we can only claim knowledge of one way for a universe to be I would ask you, without presupposing either a creator or a multiverse, to explain how the only known universe could have been other than it is.<br /><br />That is my problem with fine tuning as an argument, it requires the presupposition that the universe could have been different, when there is no rational reason to believe it could have. Science can say with considerable accuracy what a universe that is one quark different might be like but they can give no evidence that such a one quark difference could have happened.<br /><br />As to how I think natural laws got there, I don't know, I think of them as a constant, a function of the universe. We may not know what those laws are or how they apply, we may in fact be completely wrong. Observation does tell us that we are in a universe, and it has laws. It is perfectly reasonable to assume, as we only know of one universe, that those laws are simply part of what constitutes a universe. They therefore don't need to have gotten into the universe, they are the universe. Also the universe does not actually have laws. Laws are constructs that we have made to relate to our perceptions of the universe. The universe is simply forces acting on forces in an apparently consistent fashion.<br /><br />So to sum, we have a universe, it is the only one we know of, it appears to function in a consistent and orderly manner, we use our intellect to try to understand this behavior and we call some of our observations laws, we have nothing other than imagination to indicate that any other configuration of a universe, including those forces that we apply our laws to.<br /><br />So I ask you, why wouldn't a universe function in an orderly fashion? Also if a universe did not function in an orderly fashion, why could an intelligence not percieve it as if it did?Rykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16424545934239146403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-81048793752702736122010-07-21T18:37:16.968-07:002010-07-21T18:37:16.968-07:00Ryk,
Methodist and Baptist? I thought maybe you w...Ryk,<br /><br />Methodist and Baptist? I thought maybe you were going to say that you used to be Muslim, since your profile page mentions Egypt. <br /><br /><i>So before I would value arguments based on the probability of something happening by chance, I would need some reason to believe it actually happened by chance as opposed to happening in accordance with universal laws.</i><br /><br />Why do you need to believe that it happened by chance? I don't think it <i>could</i> have happened by chance. Getting back to the extra quark for every billion pairs of quarks and antiquarks, physicists say that if the extra quarks had been missing there would have been no matter. You don't have to translate all of that into probability.<br /><br />And how did those "universal laws" get to be the way they are in the first place? You just take them for granted. And that was easy to do before physicists discovered about the precision required for those laws and constants.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-6875374710575896762010-07-15T11:12:25.585-07:002010-07-15T11:12:25.585-07:00Ryk,
However that removes any moral authority fro...Ryk,<br /><br /><i>However that removes any moral authority from your religion, or at least any that is not equally available to non believers or any other faith. If a Christian is someone following a philosophy, and it is based only on that one verse you mentioned then it would be a moral as opposed to an amoral system. I do not necessarily claim it would be the most moral but it would be moral. However it would be simply another philosophy among many and not the absolute source of morality Christians often claim it is.</i><br /><br />I must not have explained it very clearly. I did not mean to say that it is <i>just</i> a philosophy. However, it is <i>also</i> a philosophy. In other words, if you don't believe in the existence of the Holy Spirit, you should at the very least be able to look at the teachings of Christianity and determine that a loveless person cannot really be a Christian in the same way that a person who promotes free enterprise cannot really be a Marxist. My only point that was that it is not fallacious to say that regardless of how they self-identify, people who judge and hate others are not followers of someone who eschewed bigotry and taught a philosophy of love. <br /><br />1 John 4:7 says, "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love."<br /><br />Of course <i>I</i> believe there is a God and that His love changes us, but you don't, and that's not the point here. The point is that this is Christianity in a nutshell: If we are truly born again, the love of God in our lives will be manifest. <br /><br /><i>I believe niether in Gods nor magic, but I see no reason to distinguish the two. I realize it seems insulting, in fact in many cases that is part of my intent, however that is not my intent here so I will attempt to refrain in the future, unless the comparison is important to the point I am making.</i><br /><br />I know you are not trying to be insulting, and I did not find your comments about "magic" insulting at all--it just illuminated to me why you think that if we can point to natural processes, that means there is no need for God. I think your expectation is that God (if He exists) would have to do things in a way that resembles magic. Therefore, He could not have used a comet, in addition to torrents of rain, to cause the flood. To you, the fact that the universe functions according to natural laws means that no God exists. I think your premise is faulty, and therefore it cannot but lead to atheism. The Bible does say that God created <i>ex nihilo</i> (out of nothing), but only in the beginning. And the Big Bang theory is consistent with this. <br /><br />I'll get to your other points later. Things are kind of busy right now.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-2482828920342016632010-07-13T20:41:28.804-07:002010-07-13T20:41:28.804-07:00You ask me.
Why will you not consider the possibi...You ask me.<br /><br /><i>Why will you not consider the possibility that a Creator is responsible? This is evidence for it, if we look at the question objectively. </i><br /><br />I have considered the possibility, thoroughly. I have simply found the evidence lacking and the arguments unconvincing. Your claim that there is evidence, really depends on what you call evidence. I call evidence something that can be observed. Most of the evidence for a creation are not of that sort. They are simply assertions. Often based upon observation but without any direct relationship to the observation. Fine tuning is one such argument. It is not an observation, it is speculation based on an unsupported assumption about an observation. It is functionaly equivelent to my musings about sentient radiation and silicon based life forms. It could be the case if we presuppose the possibility of other universes but the obsevations do not show.<br /><br />1. That it could be so based only on the evidence we have.<br /><br />2. That there is any reason to presuppose conditions under which it could be possible.<br /><br />or <br /><br />3. There is any reason why it must be true.<br /><br />I would need one of these at least before I would call it evidence.<br /><br />I am not blindly or casually dismissing a creator. I am dismissing it after much consideration and study. That is a very different thing.Rykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16424545934239146403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-11221756705918128262010-07-13T20:25:15.290-07:002010-07-13T20:25:15.290-07:00The reason I employ the word magic regarding super...The reason I employ the word magic regarding supernatural events is as a point of emphasis. There is no rational reason to believe that "miracles" or "the will of God" are functionally different from magic except in name. <br /><br />You could speculate that there is a methodology through which miracles and such could occur but it would be equally plausible to do the same with magic.<br /><br />I believe niether in Gods nor magic, but I see no reason to distinguish the two. I realize it seems insulting, in fact in many cases that is part of my intent, however that is not my intent here so I will attempt to refrain in the future, unless the comparison is important to the point I am making.Rykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16424545934239146403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-82404324110701736622010-07-13T19:09:53.810-07:002010-07-13T19:09:53.810-07:00Also I want to reiterate a point I made in an earl...Also I want to reiterate a point I made in an earlier response. You continually say things about how extremely unlikely it would be for our universe to have happened by chance, as an argument for fine tuning. However I have never indicated that chance played a role in the formation of the universe. There also is no evidence that chance played a part, physics leaves very little if any room for chance. Further I am skeptical if "chance" even exists. I know there is apparent randomness associated with quantum particles, but this randomsess is equally likely to be due to our failure to understand the rules these particles follow. Furthermore there is no evidence that this apparent randomness has any tangible effect on anything.<br /><br />So before I would value arguments based on the probability of something happening by chance, I would need some reason to believe it actually happened by chance as opposed to happening in accordance with universal laws.Rykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16424545934239146403noreply@blogger.com