Neo: Phil's claim is that everything happens because God allows it, ultimately. I say no, some things happen because of a necessity of the reality of nature and how it works. It doesn't mean God wills or even allows it to happen.
WHAT???!!! So, things don't happen because God created and designed them and put them into play knowing precisely what they would do and result in - there's supposedly a "reality of nature" that God really has nothing to do with it? And "it doesn't mean God wills or even allows it to happen." Neo, your idea of God is unScriptural - that is very clear! EVERYTHING that came into existence is dependent upon God. And He has ALWAYS known everything about them. So, independent of God, you think there is some "reality of nature and how it works" - so that God isn't necessary in their development? Before you begin regurgitating science views that are unproven - that you've swallowed hook, line and sinker, you have denied what Scripture prolifically states. "For by Him
ALL things were created, both in the heavens and on earth
, visible and invisible
, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together
As well, Neo, you've not addressed what you believe about Jesus' confirmation of the entire OT. Or how it would be possible for neither Christ or any apostle to make note of untruths in ANY of it. How is that possible? What do you believe about Jesus' confirmation? True or not? I'm not even sure if you believe Adam and Eve were real people that fell - perhaps first being created via evolutionary processes? Did they later have the image of God installed in them? Were their creation accounts totally bogus - created apart and after the animals, and independent of ANY other creatures? Jesus referred to their creation - and was rather silent upon anything to suggest they had ever been anything but humans. Jesus knew every aspect of the story of Adam and Eve's creations - not a word of warning or caution that they were in any way misleading or false - per what you suggest.
I think you are misreading some of my points. For instance, I have admitted foreknowledge in almost every post, how can I then claim that God doesn't know about something?
I do believe that Adam and Eve could have been real people who had an encounter with God, or God chose to interact with them. I do understand that the text really means that when it mentions them. And thus, find it ironic that you of all people don't believe it.
Jesus was silent about many things. I do think that perhaps what Jesus may have meant, not just the books but the people, the prophetic line etc, and obviously that I have no problem with. If however, Jesus was confirming O.T as a word to word replication, then I am not sure. It could very well be, that just like the sermon on the mount which is paraphrased and bonded together even though Christ didn't say those things in one, go, is a similar situation here done by the gospel authors. In any case, I understand that I am at a loss here, I can concede that the scriptures would maintain its internal consistency and thus it's better to say, all things considered, that Jesus did confirm the O.T.
However, I maintain my position. Adam and Eve were not the first humans through which all mankind descended and I realise this doesn't go with what Christ said, so there I am guilty of errancy, I admit I have no way to reconcile it. I also conclude this because regardless of what the text says (and it seems pretty straight), it is beyond speculation that Jesus and/or the gospel authors were certain of the Biblical story, there was no reason to doubt it.
Either way, I don't want to twist the scriptures.
You clearly believe in some strange type of deism - not the personal God who interacts, sometimes intervenes, who desires a personal relationship with His human creatures. So the "game is self-sustaining because its Creator created it so?" Do you not realize that this means HOW it operates, when, and with what abilities and interactions ARE because God has always been in control? What you say doesn't even make rational sense. Things just occur because they want to - and God has no role in allowing or disallowing it? Do you not see that this would mean He is subject to the "random," unintentional abilities of His creations - that He is indifferent to whatever occurs. That these things are not ultimately under His control at their creation or in their end results? Apparently, you don't realize the unfathomable interconnectedness that prophecies shows what will happen. And what we see, throughout the universe is great consistency and order - not all things randomly bashing about without purpose or predictability.
Here's a little Scriptural primer on what God controls: http://www.teachmethebible.info/questio ... ntrol.html
Phil, this right here is just a difference of how we perceive God, you have your reasons, I have mine. There is no argument which is basically good enough to decide one way or the other. I do think that such processes are possible, you don't. To clear up one last point, God can never be subject to random things because his foreknowledge precedes all.
It shows Phil, that you haven't really been reading my posts.
And if you see the universe it is exact opposite of what you believe, it is random chaos out there, galaxies colliding, supernovas going off. Whatever sources you have for saying this, are misleading at best. The reason you think you are safe is that you are on such a small part of the universe that it is trivial. Don't worry, our universe is "designed" to be a death trap for all life. If the universe kept expanding at its current rate, there will be nothing left or if it contracted there will be nothing left. No matter how much life you have here, the precision and order and great consistency etc etc. It will amount to nothing.
So silly, Neo - as whether God's control of events is done per interrupting how things would normally occur (through an instant, miraculous intervention), or through His established laws - which are also due to His designed control - God can do things either way, as He controls all parameters. What a ridiculous, false dichotomy! And, as previously mentioned, God INTENDED and PLANNED mankind, and always knew He would come to earth as Jesus to save a fallen world for those who would embrace His salvation. YOUR idea would be that mankind is a happenstance that God didn't control or necessarily intend their existence. Humans just "happened" to come into existence - as that's the unguided evolutionary view, that re-running evolution would have undetermined different results, each time run. So, did God plan to die for humans or not? Did He create humans in His image or not? Did He not always know He would do this? How could He not know what He would create and how He would interact with His creations, or what they would do or be capable of??? This also makes your contentions absurd - not to mention is entirely unScriptural.
God knew humans would happen, foreknowledge, again. As for the image of God, I don't know what that means, surely not a beard and nipples. If we are talking about giving them a conscience or a spirit, perhaps that sounds more like it, hence I agree but that must have come later after humans arrived on the scene. As for the rest, of course, God died for us and he always knew he would.
And it's true that the unguided evolutionary view would have different results if run each time, but again, God would know which one would be the one that brought us, so to say. As you can see in the homo genus, there were plenty of species that branched out. So in this sense, God always knew and intended which one he'd be saving.
Again, you are saying that God can create something that can produce an ultimate outcome He doesn't know of (I don't think you believe THAT), or at least one He doesn't desire, or that He is indifferent to their coming into existence? EVERY aspect of evolution, timing would have been dependent upon the necessary elements and conditions being in place. Even just the timing of what God unleashed, BEFORE any life, would have been a determinant, without ANY processes being possible. So, the processes themselves developed without God creating or guiding them? They had an intelligence and just stupendous dumb luck to produce what they did without any guidance. That's delusional! Or did He not produce programming and abilities per outcomes He could foresee and desire? And you should never speak of believing in prophecies - that, by the way, were ALWAYS known, and saying God doesn't control things. Because if He did not control things, OUTCOMES prophesied would not end as He desires them. Do you also think ultimate outcomes can end in a way God doesn't desire??? That flies in the face of a whole lot of Scripture. You seem to think God can create processes and results that can end in ways He doesn't want, or if morally or otherwise neutral (not necessarily good or bad) doesn't at least allow. He either allows a thing or not - this is true of all physical things God created. To MAKE a thing, is to allow it. And to make a thing that He knew all it would become and produce is controlled per HOW/ with whatever attributes and abilities He gave it/the parameters they would be limited by - EVEN IF, such were produced by whatever abilities He placed into motion that would allow their development, per the attributes He gave them. Such things didn't happen without things God set in motion - MEANING, first, He desired them to be set in motion, while also knowing all they would become. And all they would become would be dependent upon and limited to the capabilities and attributes God allowed / installed in them through HOW and WHEN they were made.
Did God always plan for men to come into existence or not? Did He not always plan to die for them as a God/human, while always knowing they would sin? And the idea that there could be a reality without God knowing that precisely how and when He set it in motion would determine its details, history, parameters, and end results would mean He is not the God of the Bible! If God always planned humans, always could SEE them before they existed, then this idea that He set a reality in to play that just happened to produce an earth and humans - it's inconceivable. Because earth, humans were INTENDED and always known, and all they've become, all we're dependent upon, would be impossible without what God first put into motion to produce them. He could ALWAYS see whatever He first put into motion and existence would produce, eternally so and before He brought their physical seeds into existence. If you don't think these things show God controls things, you have a different definition of the word "control" than I do!
Phil, much of this again is just a rehash of what you have written a thousand times already, just calling everything I write, silly, delusional, dumb, inconcieveable and just insisting that what you are saying is more right. I have replied to all of this before as well.
I think that such a creation is possible. You don't think it is. Please understand this, it doesn't matter what you think is possible or not. In the end, evidence decides what is possible or isn't.
As for what Neo insists is "unquestionable scientific fact," concerning the genetics of mankind, of how they could not have come from only two people - here is some very thoughtful analysis on that issue from Reasons to Believe. Note that the author Fazale Rana, Ph.D (in chemistry) was raised a Muslim "went from agnostic to a theist; from a theist to a Christian who embraced theistic evolution; and, finally, from an adherent of theistic evolution to one who now espouses progressive creationism."
Below Faz (I met him not long ago) weighs in on the issues surrounding the genetics - and as you'll see, the certainties are far from, well, certain:
A Critical Reflection on Adam and the Genome, Part 1: http://www.reasons.org/blogs/the-cells- ... me--part-1
A Critical Reflection on Adam and the Genome, Part 2: http://www.reasons.org/blogs/the-cells-
Adam and Eve: A Primordial Pair or a Population? http://www.reasons.org/blogs/the-cells- ... population
Also, as I think the essays are important, with some really thoughtful ideas and good links, I've also linked it here on the forum: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 69#p226469
The reason why this should not be taken seriously, is because of the number of homo species we have found so far, 7 of them very close to modern humans. This evidence of population just flies in the face of what Fuz is claiming in those articles. We know that populations arise together and die as well. It is a simple fact of biology.
The models he refers back to are backed up by the fossil record and DNA mapping. Yes, there are some things which are not known or certain at the moment but that is not what Fuz would have you believe. We don't know if Humans arose out of Africa alone or there were populations all over the world that grew together. That is not certain, the DNA mapping is insufficient at the moment to rule out all possibilities, yet the most evidence suggests an out of Africa scenario. however, there is not any question about populations evolving. There is no way that an entire human population can come from one pair. You don't even need a lot of data to verify this. The amount of diversity we see is just simply not there. It is impossible.
Just take one example, why don't a caucasian couple can't produce an Asian baby or vice versa or a black one or an aborgine? They can't even produce it eventually even in 100 generations. Because the same type of DNA and diseases and other genetic data is being circulated in the population. You need a population for that diversity to happen.