it doesn't suggest that at all unless you are a strict materialist

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

It's all a "God of the gaps" argument. If the current limits in science are overcome, the gap will just move to a new line that requires a creator.

---

Disagree.

Science is the explanation of how God does things. All things.

Never understood why science and God had to be mutually exclusive.

---

Because theists often insist on denying science on theological grounds. Don't you yourself reject human evolution on such grounds while accepting evolution overall for other species? Or am I remembering wrong. The exclusion only exists so far as people make theological claims not backed by science.

---

Not sure on human evolution but if it does occur, I believe it is the work of God.

---

There is never a conflict in saying something is the work of god, it's kind of implicit in the whole idea of a monotheistic god.

The conflict comes from differential treatment of scientific ideas that are problmatic for faith. I mean even here, you say you are not sure on human evolution-is that a statement driven by science or the potential hiccups that causes for your faith? What scientific reason would you have for being, let's call it agnostic, on human evolution but not on every other creature?

I guess my point is, it's faith, not science, that's primarily responsible for this divide.

---

There is no divide for me.

Anything scientific, evolutionary or whatever, is the work of God.

When I said I was not sure about evolution, I was not doubting the known science or that God did it.

I am just not as convinced as I used to be that everything is evolution.

So it may be a matter of my ignorance, but there is no divide for me.

Quote:

---

You're claiming that God is directly involved in the physics of holding together matter while also claiming God is not part of the matter being held together. From a physical perspective that makes no sense. If God is part of the force or charge or gravity or whatever else is acting upon matter, then God is part of the composition of that item and is much more Spinoza's god than what you claim to worship.

---

A world like this is honestly kind of incomprehensible to me. If God is involved in literally everything then nothing is knowable. It's like if I stepped on a scale to weigh myself I can never know if that measurement is right or God's finger is on the scale pressing down a little harder than normal. It wouldn't be testable or repeatable, so there's no way to determine. What option would I have but to doubt my own perception of reality at that point?

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

It's all a "God of the gaps" argument. If the current limits in science are overcome, the gap will just move to a new line that requires a creator.

---

Disagree.

Science is the explanation of how God does things. All things.

Never understood why science and God had to be mutually exclusive.

---

Because theists often insist on denying science on theological grounds. Don't you yourself reject human evolution on such grounds while accepting evolution overall for other species? Or am I remembering wrong. The exclusion only exists so far as people make theological claims not backed by science.

---

Not sure on human evolution but if it does occur, I believe it is the work of God.

---

There is never a conflict in saying something is the work of god, it's kind of implicit in the whole idea of a monotheistic god.

The conflict comes from differential treatment of scientific ideas that are problmatic for faith. I mean even here, you say you are not sure on human evolution-is that a statement driven by science or the potential hiccups that causes for your faith? What scientific reason would you have for being, let's call it agnostic, on human evolution but not on every other creature?

I guess my point is, it's faith, not science, that's primarily responsible for this divide.

---

There is no divide for me.

Anything scientific, evolutionary or whatever, is the work of God.

When I said I was not sure about evolution, I was not doubting the known science or that God did it.

I am just not as convinced as I used to be that everything is evolution.

So it may be a matter of my ignorance, but there is no divide for me.

---

All I know is that I have a hard time believing the Lord God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, and of all things seen and unseen marks "time" based on the 24 hour axis rotation of one planet around trillions of stars in our known universe. God's "6 days" are likely much different that we think, and time is on his side…..

Sapper Redux said:

---

Zobel said:

---

materialist atheist believes in atheist materialism. story at 10.

---

Huh? I'm questioning where you are positioning God in the creation. You're placing whatever God is in the creation as an active part and participant of the universe. If the physical universe can be understood scientifically, this would suggest God is understandable scientifically. It's a close variant of what Spinoza argued.

---

I don't follow this at all. God creates and maintains Creation, but God isn't synonymous with Creation. He transcends Creation. I can measure the power in the power lines, but that doesn't tell me about the CEO of Oncor's favorite music, family life, or even his ability to do the job. He has an entire existence that I can never know just by measuring the power output coming to my home. Same with God. You can measure some of the things He is doing, but that doesn't tell you who He Is

Sapper Redux said:

---

Zobel said:

---

of course you can. you can even make an ion change charge or stop being an ion altogether.

this is a really bad argument.

---

You're claiming that God is directly involved in the physics of holding together matter while also claiming God is not part of the matter being held together. From a physical perspective that makes no sense. If God is part of the force or charge or gravity or whatever else is acting upon matter, then God is part of the composition of that item and is much more Spinoza's god than what you claim to worship.

---

The transcendence of God is preserved in the essence/energies distinction. https://maximologia.org/2020/06/02/st-maximus-the-confessor-on-essence-energies-and-logoi-jean-claude-larchet/

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Zobel said:

---

materialist atheist believes in atheist materialism. story at 10.

---

Huh? I'm questioning where you are positioning God in the creation. You're placing whatever God is in the creation as an active part and participant of the universe. If the physical universe can be understood scientifically, this would suggest God is understandable scientifically. It's a close variant of what Spinoza argued.

---

I don't follow this at all. God creates and maintains Creation, but God isn't synonymous with Creation. He transcends Creation. I can measure the power in the power lines, but that doesn't tell me about the CEO of Oncor's favorite music, family life, or even his ability to do the job. He has an entire existence that I can never know just by measuring the power output coming to my home. Same with God. You can measure some of the things He is doing, but that doesn't tell you who He Is

---

This post all makes sense to me. But, I think I would be safe in extending the metaphor even further. All of the measurement and testing that we could do on those power lines would never be sufficient to determine the Oncor CEOs favorite music. And ignoring that we know that Oncor builds power distribution infrastructure and that they have certain standards, we wouldn't necessarily be able to tell that Oncor built the power line to begin with and that the CEO was even involved. Of course we know who builds power lines only because we understand how power lines are built, which companies build power lines, and the process by which they go about building power lines.

All of the testing and measurement in the world will only give us a better understanding of the power lines and their properties. And this is how I view science. All of the testing and measurement will only give us a better understanding of the material world. It will never be sufficient to tell us God's 'favorite music'. And because we don't know the process by which existence is created and universal natural laws are made, science is again limited in what it can and should say about WHO created existence.

This leads me back to the question of what is meant by consistency between science and God. I don't see a problem with saying that God created the natural laws . . . . only with the suggestion that our measurement of the natural laws proves God. To say that scientific results point to God is to presume to understand the material properties of God. Thats a weird position to me.

As it relates to abiogenesis in the OP. We have a few choices. We can assume that God did it and move along. Or we can assume that there could have been a natural cause and explore and probe and measure to see what we find. Even if God did it, one of the strategies above progresses fields of science and one does not. What should be the proper mindset of scientists? That God does things through miracle that cannot be understood and replicated? Or that natural laws dictate the world around us and that we can learn by exploring those laws?

We've nearly come in a strange kind of circle as humanity….from "the gods are arbitrary and capricious, who can predict the future?" to "because we know God is rational, we can measure and rationalize the universe He made" to "the universe is fixed and measureable, so what can we say about God?"

I guess the only step left is solipsism.