God is Not A Designer!

[MindOverMatter]

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 i have to? There is nothing wrong with Bible Critiscism; aslong as it is not prejudiced. To fully appreciate scripture, we must appreciate ancient cultural methods of revealing truth; so that we can better understand the authors intention.

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

We are living organisms that respond to stimuli, just like other animals; and we are the children of God. We are physical beings as much as we are spiritual. I don’t see any problem with that.

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

It means that we have another dimension of being that other creatures do not have. This enables us to have a personal eternal relationship with God, while animals…well they’re just animals.

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

I agree; but whether or not we should take those passages of scripture as literal recordings of emprical history…well, that depends on the Authors intentions. No getting around that either.

God bless,
Ed

God bless you to Edwest

 

[RobbyS]

Do i have to? There is nothing wrong with Bible Critiscism; aslong as it is not prejudiced. To fully appreciate scripture, we must appreciate ancient cultural methods of revealing truth; so that we can better understand the authors intention.

We are living organisms that respond to stimuli, just like other animals; and we are the children of God. We are physical beings as much as we are spiritual. I don’t see any problem with that.

It means that we have another dimension of being that other creatures do not have. This enables us to have a personal eternal relationship with God, while animals…well they’re just animals.

I agree; but whether or not we should take those passages of scripture as literal recordings of emprical history…well, that depends on the Authors intentions. No getting around that either.

God bless you to Edwest

Interesting discussion. There is a book by the Holy Father called *“In the Beginning…” A Catholic Understanding of the Story of the Creation and the Fall.*It is small book based on a series of homilies he gave about twenty years ago while Cardinal Ratzinger. “Genesis” is viewed as a radical “deconstruction,” if you will, of the pagan cosmologies known to the people of Israel. None of the pantheons of the Egyptians, Mesopotamia, or Greece et al. include a creator God. Few of these gods have a loving relationship with their devotees. Genesis tells us of a God who loves his people, and shows them the way to avoid the evil consequences of following “gods” who are at best angels and more often demons who despise humanity. All this is my take, and I suggest you read his little book, which is only a hundred pages.

 

[mapleoak]

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.

If God ended the world tomorrow, would He have deceived us? Scientifically, it sure looks like the world is not going to end tomorrow.

 

[NTOT]

If God ended the world tomorrow, would He have deceived us? Scientifically, it sure looks like the world is not going to end tomorrow.

World is still here. Guess we haven’t been deceived.

 

[roanoker]

I think the orthodox have it right: God the Father was the founding source, i.e., He thought up the idea of creating a universe. God the Son was the creational source, i.e., He designed it. God the Holy Spirit was the fulfilling source, i.e., He implemented the design. This is the way I like to think of the creation. It makes sense, when you think about it. And it fulfills all the scriptures…Roanoker

 

[The_Barbarian]

Notice that even your language shows that you know God is the Creator, not a designer. Why insult Him by attributing human imperfections to Him?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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”.

## God is not in place, nor is God a body - so of course He does not “enter” it. That would imply He is finite & limited, & no different in kind from Hs own creation. Which is to deny that He is God; it’s implicit atheism.

**That does not make the universe (= all existing being other than God) self-sufficient. It is not - that would imply it is self-caused. **

**To talk of God as “Designer” is anthropomorphic, & to that extent is misleading - but it has the virtue of stating that if anything exists, it is from God. **

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.

**I have no idea what a Behe’s Designer is, so can’t take the poll. I don’t believe ID is valid anyway. If the universe were shown to be completely random (though how that could be logically possible, I don’t know), it would leave belief in God as Creator untouched. **​

 

[RobbyS]

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.

I think you will find interesting a new book, Creation and Evolution, (Ignatius) which gives the proceedings of last year’s Schulerkreis conference attended by the Holy Father. A Foreward by Cardinal Schoenborn helps in any discussion about the matter.

 

[RobbyS]

Notice that even your language shows that you know God is the Creator, not a designer. Why insult Him by attributing human imperfections to Him?

Maybe not a “designer” but maybe the patterns we see do are evidence of the Creator.

 

[ricmat]

“Designer” is good enough for Isaiah. I don’t pretend to know more about God than he did.
"For thus says the Lord, the creator of the heavens, who is God, the **designer** and maker of the earth, who established it, not creating it to be a waste, but **designing** it to be lived in. - Is 45:18"

 

[ruslan]

I have no idea what a Behe’s Designer is, so can’t take the poll. I don’t believe ID is valid anyway. If the universe were shown to be completely random (though how that could be logically possible, I don’t know), it would leave belief in God as Creator untouched.

Here’s a link -

lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html

:tiphat:

 

[Greg27]

If the universe is self-sufficient and eternal, what need is there for a God to create it in the first place? Those attributes (self-sufficiency and eternity) are divine ones, and when predicated on the universe, they make it effectively another ‘god’ besides God; eternal, everlasting, and the reason for its own existence. In such a case God is pretty redundant as an explanation for anything.

 

[ricmat]

If the universe is self-sufficient and eternal, what need is there for a God to create it in the first place? Those attributes (self-sufficiency and eternity) are divine ones, and when predicated on the universe, they make it effectively another ‘god’ besides God; eternal, everlasting, and the reason for its own existence. In such a case God is pretty redundant as an explanation for anything.

Who says the universe is self-sufficient, and eternal? Even the scientific evidence doesn’t point in that direction.

As to “why” God created it in the first place, I’ve copied a post that I made below in another thread:

God is love.

Love is a relationship between persons, it has no meaning for an individual in isolation.

The Trinity reveals to us God’s love - where the Father eternally begets/loves the Son, who reflects that self giving love perfectly to the Father, and the love that flows between them is the Holy Spirit.

God has so much love that he wishes to share it with even more persons.

So he created mankind, ultimately to love and be loved in Heaven. [And BTW - mankind obviously needed a place to live, so God created the universe as that place.]

And our task on Earth is to love each other in a spirit of total self giving, and in the case of marriage, to co-create with God even more persons which can love and be loved.

IMHO.

 

[VociMike]

If the universe is self-sufficient and eternal, what need is there for a God to create it in the first place? Those attributes (self-sufficiency and eternity) are divine ones, and when predicated on the universe, they make it effectively another ‘god’ besides God; eternal, everlasting, and the reason for its own existence. In such a case God is pretty redundant as an explanation for anything.

You’re absolutely right about this. And your comment just reinforces what I’ve been saying, which is that the no-God position is also a position of faith, faith in “another god” as you say, involving a belief not proven and outside of the ability of science to prove or disprove.

 

[Camron]