Posted on 02/07/2013 6:26:00 AM PST by Alex Murphy
“Why only evolution? Why have you convinced yourself that the conflict is limited to evolution?”
I haven’t, as I already explained to you a couple posts ago. Do you have short term memory loss, or something like that?
“Would you tell anyone who accepts quantum mechanics that they cannot also have faith that God is in control? If so it is obviosly YOU who has the problem. And if not, why not?”
No, I wouldn’t, because, as I’ve already explained several times, that is not my position, but your misstatement of my position. I’m simply taking issue with your transforming of random events into deterministic ones, and then portraying that as in line with mainstream science. It’s not.
So why evolution and not quantum mechanics? Your dodge that you have previously explained this glaring contradiction is not itself an explanation of the contradiction.
And you have remained ignorant of my point. There is no contradiction between science and faith. One can observe randomness in evidence yet keep faith that God is in control, apparently so long as one’s intellect is not crippled by useless creationism.
“So why evolution and not quantum mechanics? Your dodge that you have previously explained this glaring contradiction is not itself an explanation of the contradiction.”
It’s not a dodge. I mentioned that your redefinition of random forces as deterministic ones has major impacts across many scientific theories, and yes that includes QM. What else do you want me to say?
“One can observe randomness in evidence yet keep faith that God is in control, apparently so long as one’s intellect is not crippled by useless creationism.”
You keep repeating the same assertions with no demonstration, and then topping it off with childish insults and distractions. Yet, you still haven’t addressed my main point, which is that random forces do not result in predetermined outcomes. Why are you afraid to address that?
Which is it? Do you reject randomness in nature? Or do you reject that God has foreknowledge of how reality will unfold?
“If your main point is that random forces do not result in predetermined outcomes (predetermined by God) then do you reject quantum mechanics, DNA shuffling, and randomness everywhere else it is observed? Or do you reject that the outcome of these events, which we observe to be random, are foreseen by God?”
Neither. See, you are pulling a little bait and switch there in the second sentence, because you are trying to equivocate predetermination with foresight. They are not the same thing, especially where this point is concerned.
So which is it?
What do you think is the difference? Do you think God has control of reality, or do you suppose God merely has foreknowledge?
The Bible says that the results of the casting of dice are “from the Lord” not just ‘known beforehand’ by the Lord.
“For the account in Genesis to be literally true, you would have to postulate a God who planted false evidence to deceive people into believing in an ancient Earth and Universe - everything from the light of distant stars to radioactive decay to fossils.
Seems to me that requires a rather malicious deity - one who tests people’s faith in literal Biblical truth by intentionally deceiving them with contrary evidence.”
Come on, man! Use your God-given brain. Instead of denying God (how CAN anyone intelligent do this when everything in creation indicates it “suffers from” design which indicates a Designer), why not use your finite mind and find reasons/theories why, Yes, the biblical account IS so?
Stop using “No God” as your beginning point and you’re on your way. Or are you simply an atheist (Geez isn’t that easy. All you have to do is stick your head in the sand when it comes to the question of where did it all come from?)
“It is either one or the other by your criteria - either you reject randomness in nature - or you reject that God has foreseen (or predetermined, either will do fine) the outcome of these events.”
Those aren’t my criteria. You keep saying things, and attributing them to me, as if that magically makes it so, but I’m sorry to tell you it does not. Besides, as I just told you, foresight and predetermination are two different concepts and they are not interchangeable, especially as it applies to what we’ve been discussing.
One doesn’t have to reject randomness in nature in order to believe that God is able to know the outcome of random events. After all, God exists outside of time and space, so it is not sensible to say that He knows the outcome beforehand, or looks back and sees the results afterwards. He simply knows the outcome, since He can perceive all events throughout time and space. So, foresight, as it would apply to God, doesn’t violate the random nature at all.
Predetermination, on the other hand is different. For the random causes to result in a predetermined outcome, there must be some type of external control maintained over the seemingly random events. It doesn’t matter whether that control is applied throughout the process, or whether it happens before the processes are set in motion. It doesn’t even matter if God creates a billion universes until one randomly arises just the way He wants it, and then destroys the rest. In any case, the causes have now changed to deterministic ones, since they cannot produce anything other than the intended outcome.
As I’ve already conceded, it may well be that this is the case, but nonetheless, it is not a scenario that is within the bounds of naturalistic science or compatible with the standard ToE. So, while you seem to really enjoy lording it over the creationists, you are not standing on any moral high ground. You are right down there in the “anti-science” swamp alongside them.
You saying so doesn’t make it true. I am on well trod ground ny luminaries such as the Pope and the majority of scientists who see no conflict between reason and faith. So go off with your useless creationist fairy tales and have a yabba dabba do time!
Science is the search for natural explanations for the things we observe. It doesn't use the supernatural as its starting point to explain phenomena.
Why? Occam's razor. If you don't need to invoke magic, the supernatural, or anything else ad hoc to explain something, then you don't. There's no need to invoke God, gods, or magic to explain lightning storms when we understand static electricity. The same applies for astronomy, geology, and biology.
This line of argument doesn't require atheism, it just means not invoking God's design when simple physics and chemistry suffice. I don't know if you're Catholic or not, but both Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II seem(ed) to agree that you can accept scientific, material explanations for things and still believe in God.
An appeal to authority and more childishness. Sadly, it’s about what I’ve grown to expect from your level of discourse.
“Why? Occam’s razor. If you don’t need to invoke magic, the supernatural, or anything else ad hoc to explain something, then you don’t. There’s no need to invoke God, gods, or magic to explain lightning storms when we understand static electricity. The same applies for astronomy, geology, and biology.”
This is true, however if you think about it a bit more philosophically, the adoption of naturalism can create a blind spot for science. As you say, if you don’t need to look at the supernatural to find an explanation, then you don’t. However, science has had such success never looking to the supernatural, that it is now just a given. There will never be any consideration given as to whether a supernatural cause might be a factor as to why science cannot explain any given phenomenon. Naturalistic scientists simply couldn’t propose such a thing and be taken seriously.
So that is at least a theoretical flaw of strict naturalism; it becomes a self-fulfilling mandate.
A dabba do time!
When someone claims that one is in the fetid swamps of useless creationism, citing the mainstream of Christian thought that there is no conflict between faith and science and that God is in control isn’t an appeal to authority.
I am not saying I am correct because I agree with the Pope, I am saying I am not amid the benighted cretins of creationism.
So have a gay ol time with your fairy tails!!!! Lol!
You (the Pope, and whoever else) are limiting your understanding by the very idea that you must operate based on “what you observe” all the while failing to take in the totality of “what you observe”. You see design. You see order. You see the miraculous. Yet, you see no hand, no purpose, no Creator in all this. All because the scientific theory requires that you start with a “No God” basis because you cannot observe God. Yet matter exists and there is no accounting for its origins. How do you account for this? Matter is not self-creating. Therefore, if matter (the first material) exists, and matter is not self-creating, then matter has come forth from that which is not matter (non-material—spiritual)
The scientific mind is of the material world; God is of the spiritual world (consider 1Cor. 2). How can you (or anyone else) ever hope to see (observe) the workings of God in creation when you are starting from the position that all things material must have material beginnings?
You claim “Occam’s razor” as if this [mere] man’s challenge is somehow satisfactory when it comes to discovering/explaining the origins of all things. How simplistic to invest your entire belief system in something so trivializing as to limit what can be considered. Isn’t it ironic that the scientific mind strives and strives to formulate limitless theories concerning origins, mutations of species, etc. when the “simplest” idea (Occam’s razor, no) is that a creation riddled with absolute design and order has emanated from a “creative force” full of design and order - God.
No. It is the scientific mind, hard at work to posit postulates and theories, ever-working to develop new insights and new ideas, working over-time all in an attempt to rise up and say, “No God!” (see Ps. 14)
Applying Occam's razor simply means never invoking supernatural explanations when naturalistic ones suffice. We may still need to invoke some cosmic intelligence to explain why there's something rather than nothing, but we don't need miracles to explain how the Grand Canyon formed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.