God is Not A Designer!

[MindOverMatter]

Hello. I am of the school of thought that God created a self sufficient Universe, and did not have to enter it, inorder to make “tweeks and changes”.

I don’t believe in a God that makes the planets and galaxys spin or puts a thousand angels on a pin head. I believe in a God who has used Natural-Random-Causes, shaped by various enviroment devises, in order to shape reality toward a specific end.

The “why”, to me is not important. It maybe the case that God could have done it another way just as easily; but i don’t think that our universe is characteristic of a Designer (a God that creates everything one bit at a time rather then through natural causes). If God exists at all, then it would have to be a God that creates the fundemental parts first, and then allows them to evolve into various states of being; guided by the laws of physics and enviroment. I argue that the best way to create such a universe naturally, would be to set up a “multi-verse”. As a universe extends indefinetly into the future, it is envitable that the right conditions for life will be actualised. So if your wondering how God could do it, i don’t think it would be a problem.

Let me make it clear that this thread is not an arguement against Gods existence. Its metaphysics. However, Atheists an Agnostics are free to challenge arguments for “Behe’s-Designer”.

Some people veiw my God as a form of deism, but I disagree. I will explain my position more when people start posting. I have done a poll so that i can see how many people on this site believe in a “Behe’s designer”, or believe in the God of natural Causes.

 

[antimon]

how does that disqualify God as a designer? I personally believe too that God created a “seed” of universe in such a way that everything would get into place according to God’s plan without any further special intervention, but that doesn’t mean that God is not the author and designer of all that.

 

[MindOverMatter]

how does that disqualify God as a designer? I personally believe too that God created a “seed” of universe in such a way that everything would get into place according to God’s plan without any further special intervention, but that doesn’t mean that God is not the author and designer of all that.

You may not realise it, but your post speaks for itself. When i speak of a designer, i speak of Behes invention. The idea that God had to come down and tweak things here and there; such as creating the first organism instead of allowing it to arise naturally. This is where i believe we have stoped talking about the same God. I not saying that we don’t believe in the same God, but the methods involved are different.

As far as god being an “Author” of the natural world, i have no problem with that. I could not be a Christian otherwise!

 

[JimO]

If God exists at all, then it would have to be a God that creates the fundemental parts and then allows them to evolve into various states of being; guided by the laws of physics and enviroment.

Why does God “have to be…” according to your position? If God is transcendent of the universe and omnipotent, He is not subject to its laws, and, therefore, would not “have” to create the universe in any particular way. The problem I see with your view is that God would then not be a personal God who cares about individual persons. Thus, Jesus Christ would not be God’s Son and fully God Himself. Thus, you would have to say that Christianity is fundamentally flawed. In this case, would God’s existence really matter much to humans other than explaining how the universe got here?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Why does God “have to be…” according to your position?

You haven’t read my post properly. I’m sure that i made it clear that God could have created it another way. I think the universe exudes “purpose”, but i don’t feel that it is designed, or that God could not have created things through natural mechanisms. This is not an arguement against God.

I don’t see why my universe would be a problem for Jesus christ. I believe that God is personal; i don’t see the contradiction. I didn’t say that God “can’t” or won’t influence events. But rather, i don’t think Gods influence is “neccesary” in terms of the evolution of our universe and biological organisms.

 

[BlaineTog]

I see no contradiction with Catholic dogma to claim that God created the universe such that life (and humanity) would naturally arise. I likewise see no reason why he couldn’t come down and make adjustments when necessary; it may be simply impossible for a universe with these laws to dump humanity out without at least some probabilities tilted in our favor. I see no reason why either situation couldn’t be, nor do I see any reason to favor one over the other, nor do I see a substantive difference between the two conceptions.

Crossing to the point where you disbelieve in miracles altogether obviously changes things. However, this would be an addition to your idea, not a logical consequence thereof. It could be the very fact that something is a miracle that matters, not that what needs to be done need be miraculous. The resurrection of Jesus, for example, needs to be miraculous, not just because resurrection isn’t a natural process but because the event needed to be something that clearly altered the system.

 

[JimO]

You haven’t read my post properly. I’m sure that i made it clear that God could have created it another way. I think the universe exudes “purpose”, but i don’t feel that it is designed, or that God cound not have created things through natural mechanisms. This is not an arguement against God.

I don’t see why my universe would be a problem for Jesus christ. I believe that God is personal; i don’t see the contradiction. I didn’t say that God “can’t” or won’t influence events. But rather, i don’t think Gods influence is “neccesary” in terms of the evolution of our universe and biological organisms.

Sorry I misunderstood. However, in this universe you have proposed, Jesus Christ, as fully God and fully man and as understood in the Catholic faith, would have only entered as part of the natural evolution of man. That means He built in the need to enter the universe and, as you say, made “tweeks and changes” at least with respect to humanity. And, this was absolutely necessary for the salvation of mankind. I see that you are referring more to Him making “tweeks and changes” to other elements of the universe, but the universe was created for mankind. Thus, any “interference” in human affairs is as significant as, say, making adjustments to the evolution of animals.

Also, God might not be spinning individual planets on His finger like plates, but Him Being sustains all creation, so, in a sense, He is causing all planets to spin and all clouds to form and all functions of creation.

 

[JimO]

I likewise see no reason why he couldn’t come down and make adjustments when necessary; it may be simply impossible for a universe with these laws to dump humanity out without at least some probabilities tilted in our favor. I see no reason why either situation couldn’t be, nor do I see any reason to favor one over the other, nor do I see a substantive difference between the two conceptions.

How about the human soul? Even if the universe was put on autopilot until the human body evolved to a point where it could receive a soul, the soul could not evolve from nothing. There had to be a first human soul at some point. This is a significant “tweek” to creation. And, every human soul is created, so there are millions of “tweeks” every day.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I see no contradiction with Catholic dogma to claim that God created the universe such that life (and humanity) would naturally arise. I likewise see no reason why he couldn’t come down and make adjustments when necessary; it may be simply impossible for a universe with these laws to dump humanity out without at least some probabilities tilted in our favor. I see no reason why either situation couldn’t be, nor do I see any reason to favor one over the other, nor do I see a substantive difference between the two conceptions.

Maybe i made a blunder doing this thread. Maybe my whole position is flawed. But it is not a question of whether or not it contradicts Catholic Dogma. Do you think this universe is characteristic of a God that uses natural causes like the Science seems to point to, or did God design everything in 6 days? Maybe i should of said, “are you a Creationist, or an Evolutionist”. Or do you think that Inteligent design is a science? I think that might have been better. Maybe it is irrelivant. Sorry for wasting your’s and my time.

Crossing to the point where you disbelieve in miracles altogether obviously changes things. However, this would be an addition to your idea, not a logical consequence thereof…

I believe in miracles to.

 

[BlaineTog]

How about the human soul? Even if the universe was put on autopilot until the human body evolved to a point where it could receive a soul, the soul could not evolve from nothing. There had to be a first human soul at some point. This is a significant “tweek” to creation. And, every human soul is created, so there are millions of “tweeks” every day.

Oh yeah, that thing. Sorry, I was speaking with an eye for epistemology.

Do you think this universe is characteristic of a God that uses natural causes like the Science seems to point to, or did God design everything in 6 days?

I think God clearly did not design everything in 6 days, because the world clearly looks as if it were designed over time and it would be a lie were it otherwise. This doesn’t mean he didn’t have his hand in the batter mixing it.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Also, God might not be spinning individual planets on His finger like plates, but Him Being sustains all creation, so, in a sense, He is causing all planets to spin and all clouds to form and all functions of creation.

I agree. I made this thread because some people think that you cannot be a evolutionist and be a true Catholic at the same time. They seem to think that we must believe that the world was created in six days. Obviously i believe that God intervened in respect of jesus Christ, and i believe that God creates all the human souls . But why Can’t God Create the souls and let them evolve through the universe?

 

[MindOverMatter]

I think God clearly did not design everything in 6 days, because the world clearly looks as if it were designed over time and it would be a lie were it otherwise. This doesn’t mean he didn’t have his hand in the batter mixing it.

Then why let it evolve over billions of years; is that not better understood as a universe left to its own making?

 

[ricmat]

This issue comes up on the evolution threads a lot - and I hesitate to further open this can of worms, but I’d like you to consider that the word “design” does not necessarily mean “tweak” or “tinker” or “adjust”.

Design does not mean that God creates it one little bit at a time.

And Behe doesn’t think that God created the universe 6000 years ago - he thinks that we are about 14 billion years along now.

Engineers speak of “designs” all the time, and this refers to the final product. That car is a great design. That bridge is a great design. The human body is a great design. The universe is a great design.

A design is a plan, a plan that has been implemented…somehow.

But even if you want to talk about God “adjusting” his universe after winding it up (so to speak), perhaps God even wants to do this. Not from necessity but from love. A conductor who is conducting his music in the orchestra of creation which he loves.

 

[BlaineTog]

Then why let it evolve over billions of years; is that not better understood as a universe left to its own making?

How does this let us “understand” the universe better?

 

[Mirdath]

But even if you want to talk about God “adjusting” his universe after winding it up (so to speak), perhaps God even wants to do this. Not from necessity but from love. A conductor who is conducting his music in the orchestra of creation which he loves.

Where is the ‘after’ in eternity? If God is eternal, anything he seems to do ‘in time’ from our point of view he has already done, is doing, and will do forever. Not punking on you, but the question of the clockmaker vs. the tinkerer seems founded on a human perspective that has little to do with any divine.

‘Do it?’ Dan, I’m not a Republic serial villain. Do you seriously think I’d explain my master-stroke if there remained the slightest chance of you affecting its outcome? I did it thirty-five minutes ago.

 

[fhansen]

Where is the ‘after’ in eternity? If God is eternal, anything he seems to do ‘in time’ from our point of view he has already done, is doing, and will do forever. Not punking on you, but the question of the clockmaker vs. the tinkerer seems founded on a human perspective that has little to do with any divine.

This is true. Either way-6 days or 14 billion years-is plenty of time for a God who doesn’t exist in time anyway to design a universe or two.

 

[edwest2]

“a universe left to its own making” has no particular place to go. Miracles, which are required if a person is to attain sainthood, are real and represent divine intervention. Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, for example.

As scientists figure out how the universe operates, they’ve identified certain constants, and these constants have to be within strict limits. Sure, it’s easier to say “God just got the ball rolling and everything just fell into place.” But that presupposes a kind of linear progression; i.e. this leads to this which leads to something else, naturally. What is “natural” about our universe? What is natural about Jesus Christ?

For Catholics, these questions need to be considered together.

Behe wrote a book and people are concerned that he might become some sort of a “group of followers creator,” but that is not the point. A friend of mine told me that with all that is now known about living cells, “It’s too complex” to have come about on its own. I think that statement is true, but by agreeing, I do not wish to become a “follower” of this man.

God bless,
Ed.

 

[ricmat]

Where is the ‘after’ in eternity? If God is eternal, anything he seems to do ‘in time’ from our point of view he has already done, is doing, and will do forever. Not punking on you, but the question of the clockmaker vs. the tinkerer seems founded on a human perspective that has little to do with any divine.

I don’t disagree with you. Because we can’t experience being out of time ourselves, the best we can do is make analogies based on what we do know. Which will always fall short…

 

[JimO]

I agree. I made this thread because some people think that you cannot be a evolutionist and be a true Catholic at the same time. They seem to think that we must believe that the world was created in six days. Obviously i believe that God intervened in respect of jesus Christ, and i believe that God creates all the human souls . But why Can’t God Create the souls and let them evolve through the universe?

I suppose I did entirely miss the point of the thread. Sorry Mind.

I’m a geologist and a Catholic. I honestly don’t really know how God created the universe, or life on this planet specifically. I do not believe that it happened in six 24-hour days as we understand them to be. I also don’t believe that Genesis intended to tell us how He did it.

I like analogies, so I look at it like this. Taking the book of Genesis as a science book or historical account would be like someone finding my journal 5,000 years from now. They see the following entry: “Today is my wife’s birthday. Went to the store and bought ingredients for a cake. She likes chocolate. Made the cake just in time to surprise her. We had a great time.” Those who claim that the world was created in six literal days would be like the person who took my journal entry and tried to recreate the recipe and bake the cake even though they do not understand the whole concept of celebrating birthdays or even what a cake is. My entry wasn’t intended as a recipe book. It was intended to show that I celebrated my wife’s birthday with a cake, not how I made the cake.

Genesis tells us who God is, who we are, and what our place in creation is according to God’s plan. It’s not supposed to tell us how God did it. This doesn’t diminish the significance of Genesis as God’s inspired Word. But, in revealing His Word to us He had to work within the cultural, scientific, and societal context of the authors who knew nothing of the age of the earth, or fossils, or the magnitude of the universe. That doesn’t mean that Genesis is incorrect. It just means that it must be read in context. One thing I love about the Catholic faith is that I can be a geologist and have no conflict between my faith and my profession. As stated above, even if life on earth did evolve from the “primordial soup”, so to speak, the human soul is created and there had to be a first man and woman who were truly human with immortal souls - Adam and Eve. It really doesn’t matter how God did it. At this point in human history, at least, we were not meant to know, and we might never be.

 

[edwest2]

Today, for Catholics, it matters a great deal how God did something. Do you believe that God literally provided manna to the Israelites on their journey through the wilderness?

Do you believe that man is just another animal? Or a bag of chemicals that responds naturally to outside stimuli?

If a man has a soul, what does that mean? And what about a man’s personal relationship to his Creator?

Genesis clearly states that “the morning and the evening were the second (third, etc.) day” No getting around that.

God bless,
Ed