Firstly, I suppose, I have to say thank you to Byblos, who targets my belief in the Resurrection' as a major theme, and queries the refusal, perhaps the inability, of Stu, Rick and Philip to accept that there is any other way of 'believing in the Resurrection' than theirs. However, even among themselves I see a curious contradiction that they might like to resolve, as I think it valid in this specific forum's context. Concerning miracles, Stu and Philip say exactly the opposite. Stu says that "You don't have to understand the intricacies of how something (Miracles) happened" and Philip says that "Hugh, merely admitting that "SOMETHING occurred" is not meeting the criteria of faith as per the specific wordings of Scripture." Which of these, if either, is correct? How much detail of a miracle must one take as literally true before one can say he believes in it? I think the Resurrection was an event which indisputably occurred, and could happily justify this to the most committed atheist. What I would not do is to pretend I knew exactly what happened.
Jesus, thank goodness, did not jump and down on his keyboard hurling punctuation marks and typographical accentuations into the ether in order to convert people to his following. Nor did he derive his authority solely, or even mostly, from Scripture. Quite the reverse. His authority came from his own behaviour and the preaching he derived from the society around him, which he then explained in Scriptural terms. There had been many 'Messiahs' before him (and have been several since), all claiming to derive their authority from Scriptural prophesy, but whose behaviour failed to give them credibility.
Now, back to Science. I think Kurieou and I at least follow each other's thinking for which I am grateful, but I continue to be puzzled by Mazzy.
Frankly, I don't really know. At the beginning of the century Science seemed to be pointing to a wholly determinate universe, which made philosophers uncomfortable, and relegated God to the distant past at best, so the discovery of truly 'random' events was enthusiastically embraced. However, the increase of the possibility of real "Free Will" seemed to decrease the omniscience of God, who kept having to intervene to correct what went wrong, in increasingly frustrated terms. Reconciling randomness with purpose is an ongoing problem for atheists and theologians alike. One way out is to constrict the boundaries of randomness such that the end result is increasingly predictable after all (throw enough dice and you'll get a predictable number of ones to sixes, but you'll never get a seven) and another is to multiply outcomes (throw enough dice enough times and you'll get one which lands on a six all the time). Some blend of these, and for all I know some other ideas as well, might eventually provide an explanation we're all happy with.kurieou wrote:The question then becomes whether 1) God works in a predictable manner, according to the rules of the world with which we're familiar that he controls at every point, in some logically predictable way that we can break down and understand like E = MC2. OR, 2) Whether God on some fundamental perhaps quantum level of reality, say wiggles strings that He constantly sustains in existence this way or that, in order to bring about new constructions of the necessary particles or like (for example, to add the substance necessary to transform water into wine, given such indeed happened).
You know this isn't true. Why suggest it? What use would a dog as large as an elephant be?Mazzy wrote:Well one example may be that dog breeders have been trying to breed larger and larger dogs. However, I don't see any dog being able to be bred to be as large as an elephant.
Thanks. That's what makes me a Scientist. Don't you wonder about things?You wonder about many things hughfarey.
Yes, that's clear.I will clarify that spontaneous refers to almost instantly...
And that's gone and muddied it again. To create enough matter, of the right kind, in the right arrangement, by some process analogous to the Large Hadron Collider would involve something akin to a supernova every time. Surely you don't mean that? Just the popping into existence of a breeding pair of kangaroos, say, without a huge explosion, and from nothing at all - that at least is intelligible. Is that it?...just like a particle of matter is instantaneously created by colliding photons in a Hadron Collider.
Indeed I do. Indeed I have. Here. Many times. The question is not what God could do, but what he did do.You are already a theist, and should agree God can do anything.
Splendid. Now all you have to do is to read some of those papers you have access to and you'll be able to join in the search.I wonder many things as well about evolution such as what food sources were around for those 'primitive cells', how researchers make entire life stories from a few bones, believe chemical reactions can eventually become a complex factory of reproduction.
I'm not sure I follow this. Evolutionists do want to "offer an answer to every question". As you say, "an inability to formulate a substantiated answer to every question equates to a nonviable paradigm". Hence the ongoing research. Are you saying that all paradigms remain non-viable until every question has been answered? If so, I disagree. Although there are plenty of evolutionary questions that haven't been answered, It has not been established that they cannot be. Indeed, the evidence so far suggests the reverse.Fortunately, just like evolutionists, creationists shouldn't feel the need to offer an answer to every question, nor offer more substantiation for their beliefs than evolutionists are able to. If the inability to formulate a substantiated answer to every question equates to a nonviable paradigm, then we may say the theory of evolution is still evolving.
Not at all. You seem to be equating, not for the first time, 'a lack of absolute certainty' with 'a vague accumulation of confusion.' I do not concur with your equation.When to comes to the evolutionary tree of life, anything above 'family' and sometimes genus, is a vague accumulation of confusion.
Thank goodness we agree on something!I think to be a Christian one may have many beliefs about the stories in the OT and writers interpretation of what they saw as Jesus miracles. The one belief all Christians must have is that Jesus died and rose from the dead. One cannot be a Christian if they are on the fence with this teaching.