In the context of the discussion you are right. I don't think empirically what you are saying holds up, but you are right from a philosophical perspective.
quote:ok, apparently that was a hard question, lets try it another way:
the evidence we use to show evolution has occurred also shows that we come from a common ancestor.
quote:
In the context of the discussion you are right. I don't think empirically what you are saying holds up, but you are right from a philosophical perspective.
quote:it's possible, but that's not at all what we see. I don't get the point of talking about a hypothetical that isn't supported at all by the evidence. what are you trying to establish with this imaginary possibility?quote:ok, apparently that was a hard question, lets try it another way:
the evidence we use to show evolution has occurred also shows that we come from a common ancestor.
is your position, that for the natural process of evolution allowing a species to change over time, even to the point of becoming a new species, to be true, a single common ancestor as the origin of life MUST also be true? that it is impossible to have a functioning evolutionary process without also having a single common ancestor?
a simple yes or no will suffice. i know that may be difficult, but please try hard
quote:I think it's important to point out. I think evolution is a legitimate process and also that the creation story in Genesis 1-2 should be taken "literally." One must not be a naturalist to believe in evolution as a process.
it's possible, but that's not at all what we see. I don't get the point of talking about a hypothetical that isn't supported at all by the evidence. what are you trying to establish with this imaginary possibility?
quote:quote:it's possible, but that's not at all what we see. I don't get the point of talking about a hypothetical that isn't supported at all by the evidence. what are you trying to establish with this imaginary possibility?quote:ok, apparently that was a hard question, lets try it another way:
the evidence we use to show evolution has occurred also shows that we come from a common ancestor.
is your position, that for the natural process of evolution allowing a species to change over time, even to the point of becoming a new species, to be true, a single common ancestor as the origin of life MUST also be true? that it is impossible to have a functioning evolutionary process without also having a single common ancestor?
a simple yes or no will suffice. i know that may be difficult, but please try hard
quote:
One must not be a naturalist to believe in evolution as a process.
quote:All things are upheld and governed by God. There's no such thing as an unguided natural process. Perhaps you are thinking of natural vs. supernatural.quote:To be clear, is the definition of evolution in the above statement a natural process or a guided process? Again, I think there are enormously different implications in believing in a 'blind' evolution process guided by random mutation and natural selection vs an evolutionary process guided by God.
One must not be a naturalist to believe in evolution as a process.
In my mind, the term evolution implies a natural process not explicitly guided by an agent with intention. Maybe I'm being too picky with the language, but I suspect that some of us might use the term evolution and mean very different things.
quote:
Put another way perhaps, are genetic mutations random or does God explicitly and intentionally modify genes from generation to generation?
quote:Of course God's purposes are intentional. From our perspective, things take a random path such as the spec of dust I see flying in front of me. But it does not take away the fact that it is upheld and governed by God. Creation is in the realm of "supernatural" - i.e. it did not occur according to natural laws.
Put another way perhaps, are genetic mutations random or does God explicitly and intentionally modify genes from generation to generation?
quote:
Of course God's purposes are intentional. From our perspective, things take a random path such as the spec of dust I see flying in front of me. But it does not take away the fact that it is upheld and governed by God. Creation is in the realm of "supernatural" - i.e. it did not occur according to natural laws.
quote:Of course there is. If there weren't, we wouldn't be able to identify a supernatural occurrence.
So are you saying there is fundamentally no such thing as natural laws?
quote:
There is no such thing as chance from God's perspective. In both cases, God ordained the color of the eyes and the lightning strike.
He causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain; he bringeth the wind out of his treasuries. Ps. 135:7
Job 28:26 When he made a decree for the rain,
and a way for the lightning of the thunder:
27 then did he see it, and declare it;
he prepared it, yea, and searched it out.
quote:What's the difference between natural and supernatural? One can be expected according to natural laws and probabilities. The other transcends nature.
But if everything is done by God, what's the difference?
quote:
I guess I have to respect your consistency here. Do you think this philosophy carries any baggage? I.e. Kids born with illnesses and birth defects were given said illnesses and defects directly and intentionally.
quote:quote:What's the difference between natural and supernatural? One can be expected according to natural laws and probabilities. The other transcends nature.
But if everything is done by God, what's the difference?
quote:quote:
I guess I have to respect your consistency here. Do you think this philosophy carries any baggage? I.e. Kids born with illnesses and birth defects were given said illnesses and defects directly and intentionally.
To say otherwise would carry worse baggage: something is governing the world that is not beholden to God.
quote:
That makes no sense. "Supernatural" only has meaning if "natural" is established.
quote:No, it is not unsettling. Who am I, a man (much less one man with limited knowledge), to question God and his providence?quote:You dodged the question. Is there baggage associated with your faith and, if so, what is it. By baggage I mean is there anything unsettling to you to believe that God creates suffering? You may look at this as being less nefarious than I do for your own reasons, but you can still find it unsettling.quote:
I guess I have to respect your consistency here. Do you think this philosophy carries any baggage? I.e. Kids born with illnesses and birth defects were given said illnesses and defects directly and intentionally.
To say otherwise would carry worse baggage: something is governing the world that is not beholden to God.
Can we be punished by God for our predispositions if they are given to us by God?
quote:natural: Of an emotion, reaction, event, etc.: naturally arising or resulting from, fully consonant with, or appropriate to the circumstances; predictable, understandable.quote:Then define the two terms. If natural process are entirely micromanaged by the supernatural, then they are not distinguishable from the supernatural.
That makes no sense. "Supernatural" only has meaning if "natural" is established.
quote:
No, it is not unsettling. Who am I, a man (much less one man with limited knowledge), to question God and his providence?
As to punishment, God is not the creator of evil nor does he make man sin. He is fully justified to punish man for their sins.